Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

To be considered tomorrow.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Water Rates

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will refer recent water rate increases by the Severn-Trent Water Authority to the Monopolies Commission.

The Minister of State for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): No, Sir. However, when the Competition Bill is on the statute book it will be possible to decide whether the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should investigate the activities of this or any other water authority.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship caused to many people in my area because of water rate increases in excess of 60 per cent. and 70 per cent., against which there is no appeal and for which no rebate can be paid? Does he realise that under the Labour Government it would have been possible to refer such behaviour to the Price Commission? What immediate

investigation can be promised into the pricing policies of this adipose monopoly?

Mr. King: Although it might have been possible to refer this issue to the Price Commission, it is not possible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests in his question, that is, refer it to the Monopolies Commission because the water authorities are exempt under the present legislation. Therefore, the quickest way to resolve the problem is for the hon. Gentleman to give his full support to the Bill to set up the new arrangements.

Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread resentment within the Severn-Trent area at the increases to which we have been subject during the current year? Does he realise that it is extremely difficult for ratepayers, for councillors and even for Members of Parliament to make proper representations on these increases? Will he take time to consider making water authorities more responsible to the electors within the areas which they are supposed to serve?

Mr. King: I recognise that the particular problem faced by users and consumers in the Severn-Trent area has been the wide fluctuation. In fact, in the previous two years there was a reduction in the water rate and a sharp increase in the last year. Part of this arises from what constrains the authority in its treatment of balances for the year, and this is one aspect of the matter to which we are giving consideration. But I should point out to my hon. Friend that there is a majority of elected members on the authority. In the case of Severn-Trent there are 28 out of 48 members elected, although, obviously, indirectly elected, and it is open to them to make their representations as members of the authority.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is growing concern with every week that passes about the pricing policies and all that flows from the fundamental absurdity of the way in which this industry was established by the previous Conservative Government? Does he recall that we produced a White Paper with a view to tackling some of the worst features—such as the establishment of 10 separate nationalised industries—arising from this absurdity and to bring more central planning and overall financial


sense into the system? Do the Government intend to proceed on the basis of that White Paper? If not, what alternative proposals do they have to meet the growing public disquiet?

Mr. King: It strikes me as a bizarre question from someone who had responsibility for the industry for five years to ask me, within three months, what we are doing about it. When one of the problems concerning a number of hon. Members is the very size of the authority involved—the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) made the point—I do not think that the solution is to go for one simply massive or overriding authority, and we do not propose to go down that line.

Homes Insulation

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that retirement pensioners can effectively make use of his Department's homes insulation scheme.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a special scheme for the elderly under the Homes Insulation Act.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): We are giving consideration to the particular position of pensioners in the light of the results of the operation of the first scheme last winter.

Mr. Stallard: Does the Minister recall yesterday's exchanges at Question Time about the ever-present and increasing risk of hypothermia faced by thousands of pensioners in the forthcoming winter because of the expected explosion of heating and fuel costs? Does he agree that there is an unanswerable case for giving pensioners as much protection as possible from these risks? If he does, will he consider recommending that the grant for insulation be increased to 100 per cent. for pensioners' homes?

Mr. Stanley: I read the exchanges in the House yesterday. The hon. Member will be aware that the flexibility in the existing legislation arises from amendments that were tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and

Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). The average rate of grant that is being paid is about £43 and the maximum available is £50 so that at present those on low incomes do not seem to be adversely affected.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the great dismay among pensioners at the effect of the Budget and the escalating cost of fuel? Will he ensure that the Government make two announcements before the Summer Recess? First, will he ensure that there is an extension of the electricity discount scheme, to cover all fuel? Second, will he make a speedy announcement about a home insulation scheme for the elderly? Will he consider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and myself and make an announcement before Parliament goes into recess?

Mr. Stanley: We are considering the position of pensioners and the electricity discount scheme. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the latter is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I can tell the House that we are concerned about the low rate of take-up of the existing home insulation scheme last winter. We shall shortly be launching a fresh publicity scheme to try to produce a significant increase in the rate of take-up of the existing scheme.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are making the greatest possible use of the home insulation scheme for homes that they own, as distinct from homes in the private sector? Will he urge local authorities to do everything possible to ensure that homes occupied by pensioners are properly insulated?

Mr. Stanley: In the previous financial year there was a significant under-spend in the local authority element of the scheme as well as in the private element. We are anxious that local authorities should take up the full expenditure allocation under the scheme. For that reason our existing allocation for this year is completely unchanged. We hope that local authorities will take the maximum advantage of that.

Mr. Park: As those on low incomes and pensioners may have to pay the bill for home insulation before they receive the grant, will that not automatically exclude them from the benefits of the scheme?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We are considering whether we can waive that provision for the elderly.

Planning Inquiries (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for funding objectors contesting major inquiries that involve complex land use and technological issues, involving controversial matters of national policy, especially where the proponent has close links to central Government.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): None at present.

Mr. Dalyell: Why not?

Mr. Heseltine: Having considered the arguments put to me, I have found no cause for changing my mind or changing the position adopted by the previous Government.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that my constituents in North Bucks had to raise £70,000 to fight the third London airport inquiry in 1970? They are now faced with having to do exactly the same thing again. Is it not iniquitous that ordinary, decent, law-abiding people should be put in that position?

Mr. Heseltine: Occasionally these large and extremely important issues arise. Mr. Justice Parker has made several representations to me about the Wind-scale inquiry along the lines of those put to me by my hon. Friend. I am considering these matters, but at present I have not been able to introduce any changes.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be necessary to assist the local community in Northumberland to present its case when the Atomic Energy Authority appeals against Northumberland county council's refusal to allow test drilling for nuclear dumping in the Cheviots—or has he pre-judged that case by the statement that he made yesterday?

Mr. Heseltine: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to assume for a minute that there is any

question of pre-judging an issue of such great importance. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already announced planing inquiries in respect of equivalent activity in Scotland. The purpose of my announcement yesterday was merely to bring the investigations that we are conducting into line with practice already established in Scotland.

Housing

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in the United Kingdom are without inside toilets; how many are in declared housing action areas; and how many are under compulsory purchase orders for demolition.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): House condition surveys in England and Wales in 1976 showed that there were then 1,181,000 dwellings without inside toilets. There is no precise information on the number of these dwellings in housing action areas, but monitoring of HAAs has shown that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of dwellings lacked inside WCs. This would indicate that around 150,000 dwellings lacking inside toilets are within declared HAAs. The number of such dwellings included in compulsory purchase orders is not known. Questions related to Scotland and Northern Ireland are for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware of the figures published today by the national home improvement council, which reveal that in the first quarter of this year the number of those claiming improvement grants fell by 18 per cent? Does he agree that it is time to review the level of improvement grants and to try to stimulate more work within the building industry and the provision of better homes with inside toilets and bathrooms? Does he accept that over 1 million homes without inside toilets and bathrooms is totally unacceptable?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there has been a major advance. The comparable figure in 1971 was 2,032,000. Therefore, there


has been a great advance. Improvement grants are under consideration in connection with the Housing Bill that we propose to introduce later in the Session.

Mr. Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the present situation is that the Labour Government cut the level of improvement grants on a vicious scale during their period of office?

Mr. Finsberg: It is difficult to know exactly what the previous Government did to try to help anyone wishing to improve their own homes.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that all possible assistance should be given to private landlords to enable them to improve their housing stock and to pay for repairs that they cannot possibly fund from net rental income?

Mr. Finsberg: That is why we are considering improvement grants in connection with the proposed Bill to which I have referred.

Housing Stress Areas

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the attitude of certain local authorities, such as Lewisham, in housing stress areas which refused to sell council houses.

Mr. Stanley: We are preparing legislation which will give council tenants, including those in Lewisham, the right to buy their homes, and we shall be bringing the Bill before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils at present refusing to sell council houses are doing nothing more than ensuring that a heavy financial burden will be placed upon council tenants because, when they are ultimately enabled to buy council houses under Conservative legislation, they will have to pay far more for them? Does he also agree that the only way to extend home ownership, which is a common goal on both sides of the House, is by selling council houses when there is a crude surplus of houses throughout the whole of the country?

Mr. Stanley: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is something of an impertinence for a Brighton councillor who has recently been elected the hon. Member for Anglesey to start asking questions about my constituency? Is he aware that the Lewisham council, which is one of the best housing authorities in London, will fight the Bill, like everyone on the Labour Benches, because it will ruin the chances of those in high-rise blocks in my constituency and in other constituencies? Has he any comments on what effect the sale of council houses will have in Anglesey and Brighton, especially in creating a situation in which council houses eventually become second homes, unoccupied for most of the year and used merely by holiday-makers?

Mr. Stanley: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Lewisham authority, rather than concentrating its efforts on fighting the Bill, should concentrate on ensuring that it successfully uses its existing capital allocations, having underspent its capital allocation by a total of £6¼ million over the past two years.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware that 11,000 new town tenants wish to buy their own homes and that 5,100 of them are in my constituency of Basildon? Will he ensure that the policy of the Government is in tune with the mood of the people, in contrast to that of the Labour Party, which intends to fight the people's wishes?

Mr. Stanley: A remarkable result of the new consent that we issued for the new towns in May is that since then no fewer than 11,000 inquiries have been received from new town tenants seeking to buy their own homes.

Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister say how the sale of council houses will help over 1 million tenants whose homes do not have indoor toilets?

Mr. Stanley: We managed to retain in the current financial year an increased expenditure of £100 million on local authority improvements.

Building Societies Association

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he had a meeting with the president of the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he met representatives of the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Heseltine: I have had two meetings with representatives of the Building Societies Association since taking office.

Mr. Neubert: On the next occasion will my right hon. Friend convey the appreciation of the thousands of people in my constituency who are supporters of the Conservative concept of a property-owning democracy that the BSA did not impose an avoidable increase in the mortgage rate for the time being? At the same time, in the interests of wider home ownership, as the Labour Party moved into its new home yesterday in Walworth Road, Southwark, will he do his best to fix it up with a mortgage so that it may be free of obligation to its trade union landlords?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not know that I would want to rely on a long term covenant for repayment from the Labour Party. I agree that the building societies approached the whole question of the recent rate changes in a most helpful way.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The fact that the Building Societies Association is not putting up the mortgage is not due to the efforts of the Government. Does the Minister realise that the interest rate will be going up in the new year unless the Government bring MLR down from its present high rate of 14 per cent.? Although the Government keep talking about competition, where is the competition between the building societies? They are all putting up their rates simultaneously.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is starting halfway down the road. The reason for the high interest rates is the high level of public expenditure that we inherited from the previous Government.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not the remarkable form of intervention by the Government, unlike that of their predecessors, with the building societies which has succeeded in freezing lending rates while ensuring that investors continue to obtain the commercial return on their money?

Mr. Heseltine: This must be a decision for the Building Societies Association to reach in its own best interests. I believe

that it did so in the most helpful way possible.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm the newspaper reports that he has been discussing with the Building Societies Association the provision of further funds by it for the sale of council houses? Will he say where those discussions have got to and what effect any transfer of funds for the sale of council houses will have upon the provision of home loans to first-time buyers at this difficult time?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes. The hon. Gentleman raised a most important question. If we are to finance a considerable extension of the property-owning democracy there is a need for additional mortgage finance to do so. I am conducting discussions with, among others, the Building Societies Association to find out how we may finance the explosion in ownership which I am sure that the Opposition want as much as the Government.

Local Authorities (Manpower)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied by the trends in local authority manpower as revealed in the latest quarterly survey; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations regarding the manpower levels revealed by the latest quarterly survey.

Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. It is clear that in the last year local authority manpower was on the upward trend, which must be reversed if reductions in local authority expenditure are to be achieved. The March 1979 joint manpower watch survey was discussed with the local authority associations on 9 July at the consultative council on local government finance, which I chair.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that if he were to abolish or diminish the masses of statutory, quasi-statutory and regulatory controls, including the many surveys and forms with which local authorities are involved, he could allow a considerable reduction in manpower?

Mr. Heseltine: The Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of controls. Shortly we hope to announce a substantial removal of such controls.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the freeze on staff recruitment is a short-term measure to meet the emergency that he inherited, and that in the long term what local authorities badly need is professional advice on staff utilisation and planning from such bodies as the local authorities management services and computer committee?

Mr. Heseltine: There are two approaches to the question. The first is to ensure that local authorities produce detailed figures to show how they are performing in comparison with other local authorities. The other is to encourage the maximum degree of experimentation at local authority level, together with accountability to their own electorates.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware—I think that he is—that one cannot generalise on such matters? In the case of the London borough of Newham there is the tragedy of Ronan Point, which is still not settled. There are three tower blocks that may fall down at any time, from which the occupants must be evacuated. Other houses in the vicinity must also be evacuated. This means that there will be thousands of people probably wanting houses. Does not that mean extra staff to deal with those problems? Will the Minister do something to help those people?

Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in fairness, will remember that the problem buildings to which he referred were built under the tightest central Government control—

Mr. Lewis: People's lives are involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not shout.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House. However, people's lives are involved and the Minister is playing politics on the matter.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said he would have realised that my reply had nothing

to do with party politics. The buildings of the kind to which he refers were constructed under a system of detailed central Government control. That did not stop them being built. It is difficult for me to see why we should assume that yet more central Government control will solve the problem.

Development Land

Miss Fookes asked: the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with the local authority associations the measures he sees as necessary to secure the release of land for development.

Mr. King: We have already encouraged the market to bring land forward by stopping the community land scheme, announcing our intention to repeal the Community Land Act, and substantially reducing the incidence of development land tax. We have stopped the arrangement whereby public land is first offered to local authorities, and we are considering a register of public sector land holdings which would enable unnecessary holdings to be challenged. We envisage a continuing responsibility for local authorities in ensuring the availability of land for development. We have discussed and shall continue to discuss these various matters with the local authority associations as appropriate.

Miss Fookes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say what is the time scale for the register, knowing how long these things can take?

Mr. King: There is nothing to stop local authorities from instituting a register now. Indeed some have good records of their land holdings. Others, sadly—it is clear—have no idea of how much property they own. We hope to include a legislative requirement in a Bill which will be introduced in the House later this year.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the local authority associations before his peremptory announcement on 13 June that the redundant lands procedure was to be ended? Why did he make the announcement on so important an item of public policy by means of a written answer rather than an oral statement in the House?

Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise that point. The policy has been widely welcomed by the associations. It gets rid of an unnecesssary piece of bureaucracy that was slowing down the speed at which land disposal could take place and brings land into useful and effective use.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of persuading people to put land on to the market is to impose a site value tax on that development land and land lying idle, something which the Labour Party included in its last manifesto? Will he confirm that joint schemes under the Community Land Act already entered into will be allowed to continue?

Mr. King: We have no proposals on the first item suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that that will come as a great surprise to him. On the second matter, we are faced with difficulties over the termination of this scheme. We are looking at each individual case and where legal and contractual obligations have already been entered into we shall obviously have to take them into account.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that when David Lloyd George suggested that there should be a land tax, he recognised that it would put up the cost of land? Does the Minister further appreciate that a quantity of this land is owned by hospital boards, Government Departments, the Defence Department, and so on? Will he make certain that they get some credit for their efforts if they release this land, as this will encourage them so to do?

Mr. King: Obviously, we would like there to be the maximum incentive for the statutory undertakers and for local authorities, to encourage them in the nationally valuable process of disposing of unused land. We are considering the ways in which we can give them the maximum encouragement in that respect.

Mr. Kaufman: Since the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, wishes to bring all available land into what he calls "useful and effective use", will he take action to prevent the Greater London Council from handing over its present housing land bank to private property speculators?

Mr. King: We seem to be getting slightly crossed wires. The right hon. Gentleman might like to direct his remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Rating System

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to complete his consideration of the long-term future of the rating system.

Mr. King: I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 27 June to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Barnett: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a more definite reply than that, why is it that he decided to cancel the revaluation when it was already in progress?

Mr. King: We have made clear that our intention is ultimately the abolition of the domestic rating system. It therefore made no sense to proceed with a rating revaluation exercise, which, as the hon. Member knows, would not anyway have come into force before 1982. I have no intention of taking lectures on this issue from Opposition Members who have never since the war carried out a rating revaluation in this country, and who are past masters at postponing such an exercise at every opportunity.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present rating system is the manner in which his predecessors handled the rate support grant? Will he give an undertaking that when he next considers the rate support grant he will actively discriminate in favour of those authorities which, by good housekeeping and prudent management, hold down the levels of their expenditure, and against those authorities which spend their ratepayers' money like water?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that I could not at this stage comment in detail on the points he has made. We are now approaching very earnestly our consideration of this year's rate support grant. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's points, which we are bearing very much in mind. I have considerable concern about some of the evidence I have found as to the pattern of distribution in recent years.

Mr. Hattersley: Why does the Minister feel unable to comment at this stage? Could not he at least repeat to the House what his right hon. Friend said this morning to the Association of County Councils, namely, that next year's rate support grant will help the shire counties more and the cities and towns less?

Mr. King: The right hon. Member will recall a previous Question Time, when my right hon. Friend made quite clear that we intended to end the drift away from the shire counties, which has been the pattern of recent rate support grant allocations. We stand on that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend spelt it out very clearly in his speech today to the ACC.

Water Rates

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he considers the present system of a water charge based on rating valuation to be fair; and whether he is having any consultations with a view to changing that system.

The Under Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): This is a difficult issue. The present system of basing domestic water charges on rateable value has the advantage of being comparatively cheap and easy to administer but the disadvantage of being unable to reflect variations in individual demands for water.
The water industry is currently considering the question of future charging systems, and in particular how far charges can be better related to demand. We hope to discuss this with the industry soon.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does that mean that my hon. Friend has taken sufficiently on board the widespread discontent on each side of the House, already voiced this afternoon, about the water rating system in operation in most parts of the country? In view of the fact that it is his right hon. Friend's intention to abolish in time the domestic rating system, does it not follow in logic that at the same time the water rating system should be similarly dealt with?

Mr. Fox: I should have thought that the abolition of the present rating system would have a considerable effect on the

way in which water charges are worked out. I am aware of the unpopularity of water charges. If anything, they are even more unpopular than rates. But in those areas where the authorities have introduced a two-part tariff, taking into account standing charges, I have not noticed that bills are any more popular.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that the present system of water charges is particularly unfair on those on low incomes, widows and single persons, living in fairly highly rated properties? Is he aware that these people may be eligible for rate rebates on their ordinary rates but not on their water rates? Will he seek to amend section 36 of the Act to allow the authorities, where they deem it appropriate, to pay rebates to people in these categories?

Mr. Fox: No, Sir. There can be no question of allowing rebates in this way. Water authorities have the power, in cases of hardship, to make certain arrangements. The unfairness that the hon. Gentleman mentions is one reason why we intend to look at the present rating system.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister not agree that there are ways in which the problems could be eased in present circumstances? Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friends to consider ways of arranging for the Department of Health and Social Security to make direct payments of pensions to people in receipt of supplementary benefit? Will he also have discussions with his right hon. Friend to encourage local authorities to agree to include the water rate within the council rent payment? Will he take all steps possible to try to ensure that all water authorities introduce a realistic, regular and, if possible, monthly payment system for people on low incomes to assist them to meet what this year has been a very real shock in many areas?

Mr. Fox: I am sure that the water authorities will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about water charges. I remind him that water charges have never been taken into account in relation to rebates on rates, and nor, since 1974, have sewerage charges.

Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the size of the problem, and


that, because of the rating system, in the Suffolk coastal area people pay more for their water than they do towards the cost of the district council? Unless we move fast on the change in the rating system, it will be extremely difficult to control democratically the decisions of the water authorities. Does he agree that if we want to cut back on Government expenditure, we ought to press very hard in this area?

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend confirms the fears in all parts of the House on this matter. I remind him that we meet the National Water Council on a regular basis, and that the majority of the members of the regional authorities are, as my right hon. Friend has said, elected from the local authorities.

Inner Cities Programme

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reductions in the inner cities programme are envisaged for 1980–81; and how these will affect Sheffield.

Mr. Heseltine: The Government are discussing inner city policy with the local authorities principally concerned. Public expenditure programmes are also being carefully reviewed. Announcements about future policy, and the size of the urban programme, will be made in due course.

Mr. Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inner cities programme has important social and economic consequences to do with the possibility of regenerating small-scale industry in the centres of some of our industrial cities? In the light of this, would it not be the height of stupidity to cut back this programme at a time when it is just getting under way?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know that in our tax changes in the Budget, in our speeding up of land disposal and in our speeding up of planning proposals, we have already moved very decisively to help the small sector of industry. I totally agree with the philosophy that he has expounded.

Mr. Steen: When the Minister is considering the inner cities programme, will he remember that most people living in the large towns and cities no longer live

in the inner city but in the outer city? Many of them in the large towns live on large council estates. What steps will he take to help the people living in these vast council estates, rather than the few people left in the inner areas?

Mr. Heseltine: There are two immediate proposals to help council tenants and encourage them to stay. The first is the right for tenants to buy their own homes. One of the principal reasons they leave council estates is to buy their own homes on the fringes of cities. The second proposal is to give those who remain a charter to set out their rights and encourage them to become more involved in the area. The fact of the matter is that our inner cities have, over too wide an area, become unattractive places for people to live in and unattractive places for people to invest in. Until we recognise those two harsh facts, we shall not begin to have policies for restoring the situation.

Mr. John Grant: As the Minister has already confessed this afternoon that the Government have succumbed to the blandishments and pressures from Tory shires to give them a bigger share of resources at the expense of the hard-pressed inner city areas, has he not sounded the death knell of inner city policy?
Does the Secretary of State also recognise that if the Government go ahead with these savage cuts in central Government support for the inner city areas, and at the same time there are high interest rates and rising inflation, areas such as Islington will be in a desperate situation, unable to fulfil their social obligations? Does he agree that that would be a direct consequence of Conservative Government action?

Mr. Heseltine: Nobody has announced any reduction in the urban programme for next year.

Mr. John Grant: The inner cities will lose £700,000.

Mr. Heseltine: The figures that we have announced for the current year, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, amounted to 4 per cent. of an increasing programme and are largely accounted for by under-spend, in any case.

Homes Insulation

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the current housing cost yardstick allows for adequate standards of heat insulation.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: All new dwellings must have, as a minimum, insulation standards which conform to the building regulations. But whether a dwelling can be regarded as adequately insulated depends on a number of considerations, including how well its heating system is matched to the dwelling design and specification. There is no specific allowance in the housing cost yardstick tables for the provision of heat insulation but the tables are constructed having regard to any requirements imposed by building regulations.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities are concerned that they are unable adequately to insulate the houses that they are building? Will he look at this problem again because it seems that the answer he has given is at variance with the policies of the Secretary of State for Energy who wants to encourage more fuel saving?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall be delighted to do so. I am not aware of any problems, because present yardstick procedures allow authorities to choose a higher standard of insulation and they can make use of a 10 per cent tolerance.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not the insulation of new properties which is the problem, but the failure to insulate older properties? In all-electric homes, of which I have about 3,000 in my constituency, the occupants not only have the worry of energy conservation but the additional worry of the electricity bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lack of insulation throughout such houses?

Mr. Finsberg: I am aware that this is a problem. The joint working party on heating and energy conservation in public sector dwellings has issued guidance to local authorities on remedial works in electrically heated dwellings.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that as a result, perhaps, of advice given, ordinary people, living in conditions of damp and misery, are told that the only way to cure that situation

is to open windows in mid-winter and to heat their homes, resulting in a cost which they cannot afford?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, of course, particular problems with the Braunstone estate. However, it is perfectly fair to say that one of the ways of preventing condensation is to have adequate ventilation.

Water Supply (Metering)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered a capital grant towards the introduction of meters for the domestic water supply to enable water authorities to invoice on water used.

Mr. Fox: No, Sir. I do not think it will be appropriate for such costs to be met from public funds.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and throughout the country, many elderly people are living on their own and paying more for their water supply than some houses where there are seven occupants? This is totally unjust and totally unfair. As we meter gas and electricity, can the Minister say whether we could move towards a fairer situation, using water meters?

Mr. Fox: I am somewhat sceptical about the advantages of metering water. The National Water Council is considering a pilot scheme of this kind to see whether the cost benefit study would prove what my hon. Friend obviously believes it would.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: A large part of the water service charge is for sewerage. As yet no one has proposed that we meter the disposal of sewage, so would it not be crazy to meter water? Would it not be far better to have a rebate system, such as that which applied in 1973, when people were entitled to a rebate of their sewerage charges?

Mr. Fox: I really do not think that this is the occasion to draw a distinction between sewage and water. I am sure that the definition would vary from one hon. Member to another. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what really matters is that we should try our best to make the water industry efficient and keep the bills as low as possible.

Mr. Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle which should guide legislation is that people should pay for what they use? Consequently, a metering system is ultimately the fairest system that we could have. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the failure to revalue the rating system will only heighten the anomalies thus increasing the need for a complete reappraisal of our rating system?

Mr. Fox: These are obviously very severe problems, but I am sure that the House would agree that we in this country use water in a ridiculous way. [Interruption.] I am not speaking personally. In other countries they treat water as a vital commodity. I am not certain that that applies here.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right, because so much of the water which is disposed of is treated and becomes drinking water? Therefore, in terms of finance in this industry it is totally ludicrous to divorce charges on one side of the industry from the other. Is he further aware that we share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism—which he also asserted last time he answered questions, regarding the change to a metering policy—and feel that it would cause hardship to the larger and poorer families? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Severn-Trent authority was empowerd by him to introduce meters at a cost of £50 each? Who is to pay for the metering and inspection service? Is this not a redistribution of charging within that authority, militating against the interests of the poorer and larger families?

Mr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that these are matters for the Severn-Trent authority. That authority determines the costs of delivering water to its customers. The same applies to metering. However, I certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

British Waterways Board

Mr. Sever: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects next to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board.

Mr. King: I met Sir Frank Price on 26 June. I have not yet arranged further meetings.

Mr. Sever: What help, advice and encouragement is the Minister able to give to the board for the development of freight-carrying on waterways, bearing in mind that there is a saving of some five times the amount of energy when carrying freight by canal as opposed to road?

Mr. King: Obviously we would be anxious to examine any potential for carrying freight by water. We have made clear to Sir Frank Price our interest in the future of the British Waterways Board and the canal system. It must be recognised that, while we can talk about the South Yorkshire canal, which can be designed specifically for carrying freight on the right type of barges, much of the historic canal system has very restricted lock sizes. The possibilities for carrying freight on those canals are much more limited.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister intend to change the structure of the British Waterways Board, which was the declared intention of the previous Labour Administration, or does he intend that the board should carry on in its present satisfactory way?

Mr. King: As I made clear earlier, the previous Government's proposals to merge everything into one huge authority will not be proceeded with. We think that the British Waterways Board is best able to serve the interests of consumers and those who use the waterways by remaining an independent entity.

Urban Aid Programme

Sir William Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that in the next phase of the urban aid programme a minimum percentage of at least 40 per cent. of the total funds are made available to promote voluntary and charitable work.

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that in the next phase of the urban aid programme a minimum percentage of at least 50 per cent. of the total funds avilable will go to promote voluntary and charitable work.

Mr. Heseltine: As I have said, the Government are currently reviewing the urban programme. I cannot comment on particular aspects before the outcome of that review. The voluntary sector has a positive role to play, but I do not feel that I can fix a precise apportionment in the way the questions suggest.

Sir W. Elliott: I am most grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the cornerstones of Conservative policy is self-help and voluntary endeavour? Will he, therefore, use the urban aid programme to encourage voluntary organisations in cities such as Newcastle upon Tyne to the utmost of his ability?

Mr. Heseltine: This year the voluntary bodies will get nearly £10 million from the urban programme for new projects, which is £3 million more in real terms than last year and £7 million more than the year before that. I believe that my hon. Friend will feel that that is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Steen: Although I know that my right hon. Friend does not like to interfere with what local authorities do, is he aware that many local authorities, especially those controlled by the Labour Party, have already indicated that for next year their first target for cuts will be the work of voluntary and social organisations? Will he please do something to ensure that they are not allowed to do this?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for his fair and dispassionate assessment of my attitude towards local authorities. I should tell him that voluntary associations attract support from the local authorities to the tune of 25 per cent. of the costs, and there is, therefore, a relationship between that and their enthusiasm for the schemes. I very much accept the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Sir W. Elliott) have made, that there is a role—in times of public constraint perhaps a particularly important role—for voluntary organisations.

Mr. McNamara: When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing the question of rate support grant and the shift in favour of the shire counties, will he ensure that shire counties in which there are district councils with difficult inner city prob-

lems will maintain and increase the amount of money going to the inner city areas? Can he also say when he expects his review of the problem to be finished, because many towns with inner city problems are seeking to plan their progress over the next few years but are unable to do so until they know the Government's intentions?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that there is any difficulty in the planning of the programmes in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Over the past few weeks, my Ministers have been in very close touch with the programme and partnership areas and a dialogue has been maintained and continued in this respect. The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that it would be quite irresponsible to suggest, particularly in the climate of public expenditure constraint into which we are about to enter, that it is possible to talk in terms of increasing programmes.

Mr. Kaufman: Since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) that he does not want to interfere with the right of local authorities to do what they want in their areas, will he now abandon his plans to force them to sell council houses?

Mr. Heseltine: No, because the people of this country have clearly voted to achieve such an end.

Commission for the New Towns

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of the Commission for the New Towns; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: The future of the Commission for the New Towns is being considered.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can I draw his attention to the large number of factories, shops and offices that are sited on land which is owned by the Commission for the New Towns? Can he give any indication as to the possibility of their being able to purchase the freeholds?

Mr. Stanley: The decisions on individual properties are, of course, a matter for the Commission. As to the principle,


the Government favour the policy of sales to existing lessees, which I assume is what my hon. Friend was referring to. That can certainly include the freehold.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware—as was his predecessor—of the necessity of ensuring that the Commission for the New Towns provides local offices, with adequate powers to take local decisions when it takes over new towns at present in the hands of development corporations? Is he aware that unless strict instructions and pressure are brought to bear on this issue, we may find a state of affairs in which decision-making is much more remote than at the present time, with more bureaucratic interference in the affairs of local authorities than prevails even with new town corporations?

Mr. Stanley: The number of new town dissolutions that will take place in the near future is relatively small, but the plans for the dissolution of Corby, Harlow and Stevenage development corporations in 1980 remain unchanged.

Mr. Hal Miller: When considering the future of the Commission for the New Towns, and contrary to the last question, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Commission for the New Towns does not get hold of the assets of those towns given up by the development corporations? Will he ensure that they are either realised by sale, or that arrangements are made for their transfer to the district councils?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commission for the New Towns and the development corporations are engaged in discussions with the Department about the possibility of disposals in the course of the current financial year.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister talked about discussions. Can he tell us what instructions the Secretary of State gave to the chairmen of the new town corporations about the disposal of assets when he met them last week?

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend stressed to the members of the development corporations that it would be beneficial to the taxpayers, in meeting the burden of indebtedness which the previous Government left us with, if there were a programme of asset disposal in the course of the current year.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Osborn, to ask question 18.

Councillors (Personal Liability)

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make elected councillors personally liable for irresponsible and discriminatory action.

Mr. King: While it would not be right to introduce legislation to make councillors personally liable for all decisions taken by their local authority, it would be open to any citizen to take his local authority to court if he felt they were discriminating against him.

Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sheffield ratepayers represented through chambers of commerce, the chamber of trade and Conservative associations welcome the initiative of the Conservative Government to reduce public expenditure? What is a matter of concern is the outburst, that has since been withdrawn, by the leader of the Sheffield city council designed to limit public expenditure in Conservative wards in a Conservative constituency, namely, Hallam. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that and on the need, perhaps, for a constitution and a Bill of Rights affecting local government?

Mr. King: I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that Councillor Wilson, the leader of the council, has now made clear that it is not the council's policy to discriminate against particular parts of the city. Any such proposition would be quite intolerable and unacceptable, quite apart from being a total nonsense.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that all councillors are liable to their electorate? That is why the city of Sheffield has had a Labour council for 50 years. Is he also aware that, when a Conservative Government insist on slashing the resources available to any city, it is reasonable that the city councillors should concentrate what resources they have on the most deprived sections of that city?

Mr. King: Of course any local authority must use its discretion as to where it commits its expenditure. The proposition put forward was entirely different, and


was based entirely on party political grounds. I merely make the point that it totally overlooked the fact that there were many Labour voters in the areas that would be discriminated against and many Conservative voters in the areas that would have benefited. The thing was palpably nonsense, and, quite apart from that, utterly repugnant on any moral principle.

Public Sector Housing

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector dwellings were relet during each of the years 1976, 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: About 350,000 local authority dwellings were relet in 1976, and about 390,000 in 1977, including a substantial number of relets to existing council tenants. No figure is available for 1978.

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 27 June the Minister for Housing and Construction told the House that the Government could not extend a statutory right to buy to tenants in private rented accommodation because those dwellings were needed for relet? Is he aware that there are hundreds of thousands of people on council waiting lists who are in desperate need of accommodation and who cannot afford to buy, for whom the private sector provides no answer? Is it not, therefore, a fact that these 390,000 relets are even more important than those in the private sector? Will not the effect of his policy be to extend the waiting lists for those in greatest need?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall interpret what I think that the hon. Gentleman said. He falls into the usual fallacy of those in the Labour Party of assuming that every council tenancy automatically becomes vacant. If we waited, it would be decades before there were sufficient moves. The sooner that the hon. Gentleman understands that, the sooner he will realise why the people of this country voted for council house sales.

Mr. Dorell: What plans does my right hon. Friend have for introducing a tenants' charter for those people who wish to remain council tenants? That would remove the irksome, bureaucratic controls that many councils, particularly those con-

trolled by the Labour Party, impose on their tenants.

Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend say that we are considering what should be put into the Housing Bill on that point when it comes before the House later in the Session. The one thing that we shall try to do is to make it easier for council tenants to behave in a responsible manner, rather than as serfs of Labour-controlled councils, as in the past.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mt Speaker. Six days ago—four sitting days ago—the Leader of the House announced that the Consolidated Fund Bill debate would take place tomorrow. When I inquired half an hour ago, the list of topics for that debate was still not available. It is not reasonable that hon. Members should have less than 24 hours' notice of the topics in that most important debate. Could you arrange Mr. Speaker, that on future occasions we are given more than 24 hours' notice? May I add that I did not make an application in that debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Requests had to be in by 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock this morning. If the list is not already up, it is about to be put up. I apologise to hon. Members if they have been kept waiting.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MINISTERS

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know of any other way to approach the matter. Early in May I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment about a problem facing South Tyneside council. On 31 May I received a card in acknowledgment and have not heard anything since. Is it normal for hon. Members to be treated with utter and complete contempt by Ministers? What should an hon. Member do to obtain an answer? Does he have to take up the Mace and wave it at Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) to pursue the matter through the usual channels, but the fact that his point of order has been heard may have some effect.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey (by private notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the further reductions in public expenditure agreed by Her Majesty's Government.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Biffen): Not at this stage. Decisions on the expenditure plans for 1979–80 were announced in the Budget. The normal annual review of the plans for 1980–81 and later years is now in process. That review is not yet complete, but the Government hope to publish their decisions in the autumn.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country has been subjected to a blizzard of press leaks on a totally unprecedented scale? I speak as an expert when I use the expression. As the press has unanimously reported from Government sources, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm at least that six weeks after the Budget announcements the Government decided to increase the planned expenditure cuts for the next financial year by one-third, namely, by £1 billion, entirely because the Budget, by boosting inflation and unemployment, is increasing the public sector borrowing requirement? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that further public expenditure cuts such as those being discussed are bound to lead to still higher inflation, higher unemployment, more bankruptcies and a still higher public sector borrowing requirement?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the advice offered him today by the Financial Times editorial, namely, that he should accept that welfare payments act as a regulator in the economy and that to cut them at a time like this is damaging to the economy and highly savage and unfair to those concerned? Why does he not also agree with the Financial Times that the PSBR should be higher at a time when economic activity is lowered as a result of Government action?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm two reports spread by himself or his colleagues—it is difficult even for experts in the field to identify precisely the source of the leaks—that the Department of the Environment is to require an in-

crease of £2 a week in council rents next April? Does he not regard it as totally indefensible that the Prime Minister, facing such a situation, should refuse to consider reducing mortgage relief for higher-rate taxpayers?

Mr. Biffen: In no way can I be held responsible for the blizzard of leaks. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be blinded by them, that is his misfortune. Neither can I agree with the various premises on which he proposes alternative policies for the Government. He knows perfectly well that these issues were resolved at the last general election. Neither am I a puppet of the Financial Times, eagerly searching every editorial to discover what to do next.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the broad thrust of our public spending policy, he can do no better than refer to the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, when she said that
It is important that we reduce public expenditure as a proportion of the total national income. Our task at the moment is to constrain it."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 345.]

Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he refers to the so-called mandate that the Conservative Party received at the last general election, when we told the country that, if elected, a Conservative Government would make savage cuts in public expenditure, he will find that the right hon. Lady advised Tory candidates to refer not to cuts in public expenditure but to trimming waste? Is he aware that on the Labour Benches at least we find it impossible, in July, to discover anyone who admits to having voted Conservative in May?

Mr. Biffen: To describe as a cut a policy that has as its broad objective the stabilisation of public expenditure is to demonstrate the myopia that is responsible for the position of this country today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one further speaker from each of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative Benches.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Chief Secretary show some sign of learning the lesson to which the previous Administration awoke too late, namely,


that no party with or without a large parliamentary majority can effectively govern the country unless it deploys its policies to carry with it the great mass of the country? To that end, will the right hon. Gentleman expose his spending policies to the cut and thrust of debate in this House now, so that they can be understood by the country at large?

Mr. Biffen: We are committed to publish the White Paper on public spending in the autumn. We shall fulfil that commitment, and that is a good deal earlier than the timetable performance of our predecessors.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not a matter of cuts but of keeping the lid on the explosion in public expenditure that was set in train by the previous Administration? As private business, local authorities, nationalised industries and statutory undertakers are deeply concerned about this issue, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to arrive at finality in his difficult task and make an announcement as quickly as possible?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly. We are in touch with the local authorities and other spending authorities. We hope to ensure that they are aware of what is expected

of them in sufficient time for them to make the necessary changes in 1980–81.

Mr. Winnick: Will not the savage cuts to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred on Monday—not in the House—cripple essential services and cause untold harm and suffering? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reaction of ordinary people is broadly the same—that this Government are like a curse upon the land?

Mr. Biffen: Language such as "savage cuts" and "untold harm and suffering" is rhetoric that is so remote from the realities of government today that it underlines the profound wisdom of the nation in putting the so-called Labour intellectuals on to the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main source of the leaks was the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when he was speaking on Monday at a private conference organised by the Financial Times? Is he aware that in that speech the Chancellor referred to the savagery of the cuts?

Mr. Biffen: It is absolutely nonsensical to describe the proposition that public sector spending, in real terms, should be stabilised as either a leak or a savage cut.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING ORDER

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your ruling on an important matter. The draft statutory instrument entitled "The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1979" was referred by the House on 12 July to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. The instrument was dealt with by Standing Committee this morning.
Under Standing Order No. 73A, a motion must now be tabled by the Government so that the House can approve that order. Time is short. There is only Thursday and Friday before the House goes into recess.
The problem is that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its third report of 17 July, five days after the House sent the statutory instrument upstairs, drew the special attention of both Houses to the order
 on the ground that for one of its purposes reliance is placed on a provision which has yet to be enacted.
That provision is the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Bill, which is not due to receive its Royal Assent in the House of Lords until Friday.
No one seeks to delay the making of the order. It is important, because it affects pensions, mobility allowance and similar benefits. However, before 3 May we heard much in the House and outside about the rule of law and the rules of procedure in the House.
In the past few days the Government have been hell-bent on cramming legislation through the House before the recess, and making mistakes. It is their Kampuchean experiment to turn everything upside down. In doing so they are bypassing procedure. Those procedures exist as much to protect the Opposition as to facilitate Government business.
When I raised this matter in Standing Committee this morning, the Minister told me that it was only a technical anomaly. If we do not stand firm now on this issue, we cannot tell what procedural bypass will be used next by the Government.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the House is in no position to approve that order until the Bill receives Royal Assent.

If the recess date is to be maintained, either the Royal Assent must be brought forward or the order must not be dealt with until the end of business on Friday, by which time the Bill will have been given its Royal Assent.
I looked at the "good book" because I did not want to delay the House unnecessarily. Page 585 deals with the powers of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and lays down the matters to which it can draw special attention. The laying of an instrument part of which is related to a measure that has not yet been passed is not covered. Clearly it was never conceived that a Government would lay a statutory instrument relating to a measure that was not yet enacted. I seek your ruling on this important matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: The point of order is clear.

Mr. Cryer: I wish to emphasise the rules under which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments can report items to the House. It can report if it appears that there is a doubt that a matter is intra vires—as in this instance. It can report if it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made, or if its drafting appears to be defective. The Committee also wanted the Standing Committee to consider the order and for it to send reports.
The Select Committee was established by the House in part as a result of a book entitled "The New Despotism". The Select Committee was designed to impose scrutiny on the enormous powers of Ministers to produce about 2,000 Acts or mini-Acts each year. I hope that the efforts of the Select Committee will be considered carefully and that action will be taken.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Select Committees that work on our behalf. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that he had looked up the "good book"—in this case "Erskine May". He will not expect me to comment on his preamble about the Government. I am prepared to answer his substantial point of order.
The hon. Member is quite correct. It would not be proper for me to put the Question under paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 73A on a draft order which depends on a Bill which has not received the Royal Assent.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your ruling to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), would it not be appropriate and convenient for the Leader of the House to indicate that the business of the House will be so arranged as not to conflict with your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: The order is not before the House yet. That question could be raised when it is on the Order Paper before the House.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I wish to raise another point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon you allowed a private notice question from the Shadow Chancellor. I realise that that is entirely a matter for your discretion, Mr. Speaker.
If a private notice question is allowed, does that entitle the hon. Member who asked it, and his hon. Friends, a ratio of supplementary questions thereafter of five to one? I appreciate that the matter that the right hon. Gentleman sought to raise had no substance. I understand your desire, Mr. Speaker, to proceed. Is there not a problem if a right hon. Gentleman is allowed to ask a whole series of additional supplementary questions on a subject that had no substance in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has returned to the House after an absence. Therefore, he cannot be aware that in the last Parliament when a private notice question was allowed from the Front Bench more than one supplementary question was permitted. That is within the memory of all those who served in the last Parliament.
This afternoon I did my best by calling one hon. Member from a minority party, one Back Bencher from the Government side and one Back Bencher from the Opposition. I thought it fair, in view of the answer that the Minister had given, to bring the questions to a conclusion.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend public rights of access to official information; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill is a shortened and considerably revised version of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in January 1979 and, on that occasion, given an unopposed Second Reading. That Bill fell at the general election. It has been shortened by the removal of the clauses dealing with the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and its replacement.
Since the Government have given a specific undertaking to deal with that matter in this Session, that part of the previous Bill has been dropped in the hope that, at last, a blot on the criminal law will be removed, as has been repeatedly promised.
My Bill concentrates on establishing a public right of access to official documents, subject to substantial exceptions which are designed to protect both public and private interests. The exemptions have been revised and extended in the light of criticisms made at the Committee stage of the Bill of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. The schedule exempts from the public right of access documents containing information that may harm the national interest in respect of defence and security, foreign relations, the currency or the reserves and law enforcement, or threaten private interests by the invasion of privacy of individuals or the commercial position of firms through the release of confidential information.
There are, therefore, certain specific differences between this and the earlier Bill. First, the departmental authorities to which the Bill applies are limited to central Government and the National Health Service, though a power has been added to extend the list by order subject to affirmative resolution.
Secondly, regarding the exemptions, currency and reserves have been added as a ground for withholding information or refusing access.
Thirdly, the Bill gives a test of damage to a company's position and another of damage to departmental relations. I admit that those are fairly broad, but they are better tests than straight confidentiality, which would prevent any information supplied in confidence being made available, even where there was a clear public interest. I am thinking of, for example, matters relating to environmental pollution, health hazards, dangerous products and so on.
Fourthly, since prejudicial information about individuals is held and used under the system of confidentiality, the Bill allows for the correction by individuals of documents about themselves.
Fifthly, the additional five-year protection in the earlier Bill for all Cabinet documents is extended to 10 years.
Sixthly, the Bill will enable an exemption to be made—and it is an important exemption—where it can be shown that the cost of retrospection will be excessive.
Seventhly, since strong objection has been taken to giving access to policy advice subject to deferment, a provision has been added to allow copies of documents to be asked for with the deferred material deleted. The aim is to prevent Ministers from keeping back until after the event the factual and technical information on which policy decisions are made. A topical example could be the reports of the Nuclear Inspectorate into the safety record of pressure water reactors.
Lastly, the Bill would give direct public access to the Ombudsman and allow him to investigate the merits of cases. Since resort to the Ombudsman to enforce the rights of access may, as hon. Members will know, be slow, the Bill adds a judicial review as an option which would be quicker and more effective.
It is essential that access should be by right. Both the previous Government and the present Government have jibbed at that and have either promised a more relaxed discretionary policy or flirted with a purely administrative code of practice. I can see why that has been so, but neither course will do.
Parliament exists to check the Executive but it is idle to pretend that however hard hon. Members work on behalf of their constituents they can ever cope with the burden created by the extension of

parliamentary activity into every aspect of national life. The only people who can fully protect and advance the interests of the people are the people themselves. In order to do that, they need to know the policies of the Government, on what advice and information they have been formed, to whom they apply, the rules for the application of policy, how the rules affect individual citizens and on the basis of what information about those citizens decisions are made.
I recognise that the availability of such information will alter the balance of the constitution. It will restrict, to some degree, the freedom of manoeuvre of Ministers and it will expose the real importance of civil servants in government to greater public recognition and scrutiny. That may be unwelcome in some quarters, but I believe that it is long overdue. It would certainly make for more responsible and accountable government and might, perhaps, allow a better-prepared Parliament to play a more effective role on behalf of a better-informed electorate.
I should like to add a word on two important practical questions on which supporters of the principle of a right of access to official information may differ, namely, retrospection and cost.
The first question is whether a freedom of information Act should apply to documents already in existence or only to those created after its enactment. In other words, should documents written in the security of the present system, with a protection that lasts for at least 30 years, suddenly be exposed to publication? On the other hand, it would be odd if access were possible to what was created 30 years ago and what is created tomorrow but to nothing in between.
Another practical consideration is the sheer bulk of files that would need to be examined and reorganised if retrospection were allowed. That is why the Bill leaves the matter open and makes the considerable concession of allowing the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval to exclude from the Act documents created before its enactment.
On the question of cost, the most alarming estimates have related to retrospection, and the worst horror stories, especially those from the United States, reflect retrospective rights of access.
Official estimates of costs in the United States have grossly exaggerated, in anticipation. Most important, in the light of present expenditure on the Government's information services and advertising, none of the estimates looks large. So much public money is wasted on indifferent propaganda and some dotty advertising campaigns that surely, even in this new era of austerity, we should be able to contemplate some extra expenditure to make government more accessible, comprehensible and accountable. I submit that if the Government are serious about wanting to set the people free, the Bill should be their top priority.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Meacher, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Archie Hamilton, Mr. Christopher Price and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Michael Meacher accordingly presented a Bill to extend public rights of access to official information and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 November and to be printed.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RETIREMENT)

3.58 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Richard Douglas Barlas, KCB, OBE, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, its gratitude for his long and distinguished service which he has rendered with unswerving devotion in the conduct of the business of this House.
This is both a sad and a joyful occasion. It is sad because we are saying farewell to the Clerk of the House; it is joyful because we are expressing our gratitude and appreciation for a job which has been well done.
Sir Richard Barlas joined this House immediately after the war following distinguished service in His Majesty's Forces. Since then, for over 30 years—nearly half a lifetime—he has been in the service of this House. It is clear from talking to Sir Richard's colleagues that he was marked out early for high things. A succession of offices in the Clerk's Department were held, all with distinction, before he became Clerk to the Procedure Committee and made a special contribution to the procedures of this House. What, after all, could be more important than that? Procedure is the only constitution that we have.
His name will be associated with a number of important reforms. I single out one—the committal of part of the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee, once considered a heresy. Now it has become an orthodoxy. After a period as Principal Clerk of Committees, he returned to the Table as Clerk Assistant and for the last thre years, at the summit of his profession, he has served as Clerk of this House. Perhaps his reflections on achieving that high office were similar to those of the best known Clerk of this House, Mr. Erskine May, who in 1871 confided the following reflections to his private journal:
For the whole of that time I have practically and to all intents and purposes, been the chief officer of the House, though holding the second place only; and my promotion is, therefore, less of a rise than it would otherwise have been. But with these little abatements I trust that I shall realise substantial advantages. It is always better to be first than second; my


authority will be increased; I shall have some patronage, which promises to be the plague of my life; and I shall be spared the intolerable drudgery of keeping the minute books for the ' Votes and Proceedings ', which have sometimes worn my fingers to the very stumps, and made the nerves of my head throb through the night.
It is fitting that Sir Richard should crown his career with the office of Clerk since he is one who has Parliament in his blood. I learnt last night that Sir Richard's grandfather, a poet of the nineties, was so concerned about the state of parliamentary institutions that he appeared late at night in Parliament Square armed with a pistol which he discharged in the direction of the House of Lords and missed it. The story has a happy ending because he was bailed out of prison by Mr. Oscar Wilde.
Every institution, if it is to succeed, must have a devoted permanent staff, and the House of Commons is no exception. Members of Parliament are ephemeral creatures: we come and we go, and we are easily replaceable. We all know that if one of us stepped under that proverbial bus, after a decent interval—say, 24 hours—100 hopefuls would congregate about our seat. But the staff of this House is more permanent.
Nobody knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, what we owe to the Clerks of this House. We are allowed occasionally to see the tip of the iceberg—those hasty confabulations between yourself and the Clerks of the Table when the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) or my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raises an especially recondite point of order. It is one of the reasons—I say only one, Mr. Speaker—why you always come up with the right answer. But that is only the outward sign of the patient hours of work which every day is put into the work of this House by those who serve it.
What makes a great Clerk? First of all, scholarship: the chief Clerk is an acknowledged expert on procedure. Hon. Members must be able to rely unhesitatingly on the quality and the correctness of the advice received. Second, impartiality: every hon. Member must, and does, know that, whatever his party, he will receive the same dispassionate advice and consideration of his point of view. Third, accessibility. Everyone knows,

and must know, that the Clerks, particularly the chief Clerk, are the servants of the House, available to hon. Members at every hour of the day and at many hours of the night.
Applying all those criteria, Sir Richard triumphantly fulfils all three of them. As he moves into retirement with Lady Barlas, the House of Commons thanks him and wishes him well. He carries with him our esteem, our gratitude and our affection.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: It gives me great pleasure to support the remarks of the Leader of the House. As he says, the motion is in the names not only of the Prime Minister and himself but those of myself, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). I understand that, on this occasion, I am to have the privilege of speaking for all of them, which is a responsibility that I would not dare take upon myself on any other occasion but this.
I should like to echo completely everything that has been said by the Leader of the House in commemorating the 33 years' service that Sir Richard has given us. Some of us have seen him man and boy. He has fulfilled every expectation. He has been universally helpful and has been held in great respect by all hon. Members. About 20 years have elapsed since he started appearing regularly at the Table as the Fourth Clerk at the Table. Since then we have watched with great pleasure and admiration the way in which his authority has extended.
Sir Richard is, I am told, an authority on the subject of privilege and patronage. I agree with the Leader of the House that, if he is an authority on patronage, I can think of a spare-time occupation for him. It looks as if I am about to have trouble with our Chief Whip on this subject and I dare say that we would be able to use Sir Richard's advice. I am also sure that the Government Chief Whip would like to be able to do so.
The Leader of the House referred to Sir Richard's adventures with another


place. I am sure that I can refer, without doing any damage, to the fact that he has an impeccable political pedigree. His grandfather was one of the early members of the Social Democratic Federation. When he went to court, I understand that he said that he had fired his pistol to show his contempt for another place. I, like you, Mr. Speaker, have watched Sir Richard very carefully over the last 20 years, but I have never discovered anything but the most impartial attitude in his dealings with another place. I am sure that he has overcome any prejudices that his grandfather might have had in that regard, although, on the whole, I am rather on the side of his grandfather.
We all hope that Sir Richard will have a happy retirement with his wife. I think it is well known that he has a narrow canal boat that he christened "Erskine May"—"Greater love hath no man than this." I am certain that he will never run the boat aground and that he will steer it through the locks and canals in the same way that he has steered Parliament through the law, privileges, proceedings and usages that we follow. I am happy to associate all hon. Members in the minority parties with the elegant words with which the Leader of the House moved the motion and to say that I hope it will be carried nemine contradicente.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: This is an occasion for Parliament as a whole, including its Back Benchers, and appropriately so, because Sir Richard, in his career as a servant of the House, has been so outstandingly generous in the time that he has given to questions raised with him by Back Benchers.
Eighteen years ago, the noble Lord Lord Pannell, then the Member for Leeds, West, gave me a thoroughly useful bit of advice. He said "You can consult any of the Clerks and get a competent answer; but if you want the best advice, go to Richard Barlas, Fourth Clerk at the Table." Never have I had better advice than that.
It is a source of sadness to me that by an accident of timing, Mr. Speaker, you will never have the opportunity of reaching with your left hand for a copy of "Erskine May" bearing on its spine the name "Sir Richard Barlas" as editor. It

would have been so fitting could that have been so.
Those who look back at Procedure Committee and, indeed, Committee of Privileges records of evidence will not be able to avoid noticing how often, even when he was in a very junior capacity in the service of the House, it was Mr. Barlas, as he then was, who was sent by his peers and, indeed, by his seniors to give evidence to the Select Committees serving the House on behalf of the Clerk's Department. I believe that it was without precedent in the previous Parliament, when the Committee of Privileges was reporting on the power of the House to enforce its privilege and to punish for contempt, that after it had completed its report it asked Sir Richard for his views on its report before submitting that report to the House of Commons—which is a very eloquent token of the esteem in which it held its Clerk.
This is an occasion on which we are losing our Clerk at the height of his powers rather than when they are in decline. It is not, I think, a secret that Sir Richard has felt that it is in the interest of the career structure of the Clerk's Department, which he has done so much to build up, to strengthen and to imbue with his own qualities of scholarship and wisdom, that he should set an example—alas, not one invariably followed before him. The House will be the poorer for that example, but a healthy one it is.
I wish to join with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my very best wishes to Sir Richard for his future and my thankfulness for his friendship, his counsel and his services to the Back Benches of this House as well as to the Front Benches.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not wish in any way to oppose the motion. Indeed, I shall be making a few remarks in support of it. However, I have some queries and questions concerning the motion.
First, I have never had a cross word with Sir Richard Barlas and, of course, I wish him well in his retirement. I do not in any way dispute anything that has been said concerning him and his activities. I only hope and trust—I believe


that it is so—that, whilst Sir Richard has been giving such good service, he has been adequately rewarded, and that the trade union activities in seeing that he got properly paid for the job were successful.
The point I am making is that there are some others who also give 30 or 40 years' good service. I should have liked to see this motion extended. I do not like certain people being singled out for the tribute that they deserve when others who give equally good service do not receive even an honourable mention.
Very often, Mr. Speaker, some of your staff have been here for 30 or 40 years and have given to hon. Members who have been here for 30 or 40 years equally good service. I am referring to the messengers, to the Serjeant at Arms, to the Library staff. None of those gets a knighthood or an OBE. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, they do not. I am entitled to say what I believe, whether or not hon. Members like it.
I am not in any way decrying Sir Richard Barlas or any of the things which have been said. All that I am hoping is that if what we are doing now is a good thing—and it is—it will be extended to some others.
I want to pay tribute on the Floor of the House to some of the people to whom I am referring and to use the opportunity that the motion gives me to say that Fred Green did wonderful work for the House of Commons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the motion, which does not, I am afraid, deal with other people. It deals with Sir Richard Barlas.

Mr. Lewis: But I can give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have doubts as to whether I should support the motion. I am therefore trying to explain that I may well think that it is a good motion but one that does not go far enough. Therefore, I have doubts as to whether I should support it.
One of the reasons why I believe that the motion is not as good as it might be is that it does not include others, in addition to Sir Richard. Therefore, I am saying—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not keep shouting. If they do not

like what I am saying, they can leave the Chamber.
There was also John Marlin—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he continues with a repetition of the names of honourable people who have served this House I shall ask him to resume his seat, because this motion deals with one person, and one person only—the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Surely I am entitled, Mr. Speaker, to say that I have doubts as to whether the motion as worded is satisfactory or adequate.

Mr. Speaker: I shall rule on that point at once. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer only to what is in the motion before the House.

Mr. Lewis: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there may be some doubt as to whether I should support the motion because of the fact that it singles out one individual, Sir Richard Barlas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I was going on to say that everything that has been said about this individual could be said about other people. I am not in any way decrying the praise of Sir Richard, but when these motions are put down we might try to pay tribute to other servants of the House, including the girls who serve us in the cafeteria, who do not get paid so well.
I know that what I am saying is unpopular. I know that I shall be called to order, Mr. Speaker, and you may well rule me out of order and ask me to leave the Chamber. But I am still going to say what I believe is the case—that we make fish of one and fowl of the other. I want to see those other people, the poorer paid ordinary people who also give good service, being included in motions such as this one. They will not get their peerage or their knighthood, but I have paid tribute to them here today in speaking on this motion.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I ask leave of the House to pay a short personal tribute myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Sir Richard Barlas is one of those rare people who has added lustre to one of the great offices of State. His unfailing courtesy, his integrity, his loyalty and his high ability


have placed the whole House in his debt, and certainly I am deeply grateful to him for the service that he has rendered.
He entered this House in the same year as those of us who came in the 1945 intake. He has been a friend, a guide and a mentor to untold Members of Parliament. I believe that I speak for the whole House when I say that we wish both Lady Barlas and Sir Richard long years of good health and happiness in their retirement.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Richard Douglas Barlas, KCB, OBE, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, its gratitude for his long and distinguished service which he has rendered with unswerving devotion in the conduct of the business of this House.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

4.19 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The Government welcome this opportunity to make clear their approach to the problems of Southern Africa and the discussions that will be taking place on these and other matters at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka, and the opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members.
There is naturally deep concern in the House and in the country generally about the situation in Rhodesia. Rhodesia is the last sizeable territory of the British Empire which we have not yet been able to bring to legal independence. It is the Government's objective, as it has been our predecessors', that the principles of a non-discriminatory multi-racial society should be enshrined in all our former territories at the time we grant them independence.
In relation to Rhodesia, successive British Governments laid down clearly before the unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 the way in which those principles should apply to negotiations for a political settlement. Those five principles were: first, the principle and intention of majority rule already enshrined in the 1961 constitution would have to be maintained and guaranteed; second, there would have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the constitution; third, there would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population; fourth, there would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination; fifth, the British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. After the illegal declaration of independence, a sixth principle was added by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), namely, that it would be necessary to ensure that, regardless of race, there was no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority.
That is the basis on which successive British Governments have sought to


achieve a solution to the Rhodesian problem. Our election manifesto reaffirmed our commitment to those six principles. It made clear our intention to achieve a settlement based on the democratic wishes of the people of Rhodesia and to ensure that the country, when it proceeds to independence, gains international recognition.
The House is familiar with the attempts made by one Government after another over the past 16 years, for they began well before UDI, to find a basis for Rhodesia's independence which stood up to the test of those principles. Those attempts ended in failure. It has not been for want of trying that successive British Governments have been unable to bring about a solution, but there was no significant change in the internal situation in Rhodesia. White minority rule continued. The terrorist war intensified, claiming more and more lives and a growing list of atrocities.
There was, however, for those who could see it at the time, real hope for the future when, in response to the Kissinger proposals, Mr. Smith, in September 1976, accepted a commitment to majority rule within two years. It nevertheless proved impossible to reach agreement at the ill-fated Geneva conference, and further attempts at a settlement under international auspices were also unsuccessful. Eventually, agreement between black and white was reached within Rhodesia on 3 March 1978. This internal settlement, despite its imperfections, represented a major advance, and it is right that we should acknowledge this fully. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I were united in urging the then Government to recognise that this was so and to take positive steps to encourage it to develop in the direction that both we and they wanted. The late Reginald Maudling, whose understanding in these matters we remember so well, spoke strongly in that sense in our debate on 8 November last year.
The response of the British Government at that time was never more than grudging, yet remarkable progress was made in Rhodesia. All racially discriminatory laws have been repealed. In a referendum of the white electorate a new constitution was approved. After that came the elections in April, the first

ever held in Rhodesia on the basis of universal suffrage.
Many critics have sought to deny the significance of that election, in which 65 per cent. of the electorate voted, attributing the high turnout to pressures of various kinds. If the turnout had been small it would no doubt have been argued that that demonstrated a lack of support for the internal leaders and the arrangements they had negotiated. That election cannot possibly be written off as an event of no significance. It is, indeed, an advance without parallel in the history of Rhodesia.
There are those who, against all the evidence, have sought to deny that major changes of a kind and on a scale that would have been unthinkable a short time ago have taken place. There are others who have sought to minimise the importance of what has been achieved. That is not the view of the Government, nor is it the view of the team of observers under the distinguished leadership of my noble Friend Lord Boyd. It seems to me self-evident that our policy must be based on a full appreciation of what has been accomplished and that we should pay tribute to it. I believe that it has brought us much closer to a solution than ever before.
We are conscious of Britain's responsibilities towards Rhodesia. We intend to carry them out with full regard to the situation as it exists now in that country and to the wishes of its people. Terrible war still rages in Rhodesia. Hundreds of ordinary anonymous Africans who never had any part in UDI are being killed every week by fellow Africans.
It is imperative that we seek a solution that contributes to a better and more secure future for the people of Rhodesia and of the neighbouring countries. To that end we initiated a full process of consultation. Our first concern was to establish proper contact and communication with the newly elected Government in Salisbury. A senior official, Mr. Day, was sent to Salisbury for that purpose. He keeps us in constant touch with what is happening there. One of the main purposes of these contacts has been to break down the atmosphere of suspicion, bitterness and mistrust which has bedevilled all attempts to achieve a solution to the Rhodesian problem over the past 15 years. Rhodesians, both black and white,


are now coming to realise that we are determined to do the best we can to help them and their country and that we do so as their friends.
The Government appointed Lord Harlech as a special emissary to visit the Commonwealth and other African States most closely concerned with the Rhodesia problem. I am most grateful to him for the way in which he has carried out that task. He has had discussions with the Presidents of Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, Malawi and Angola, with the Mozambique Government, and with the federal military Government in Nigeria. He also met Mr. Mugabe and representatives of Mr. Nkomo. Although, not surprisingly, the views of the people he met varied considerably, he found general agreement on three points: first, acceptance that the situation in Rhodesia has changed and that account must be taken of this; second, criticism of certain aspects of the Rhodesian constitution; third, a firm view on the part of all the leaders to whom he spoke that a solution to the Rhodesia problem must stem from the British Government as the legally responsible authority.
Later, Lord Harlech visited Salisbury to discuss with Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues the results of his consultations with the African Presidents. Later again, Bishop Muzorewa saw President Carter and Mr. Vance in the United States, and my noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I had talks with Bishop Muzorewa in London. We welcomed this opportunity to discuss with him the way towards a settlement. We impressed upon him that the present British Government recognised and accepted the extent of the progress that has been made inside Rhodesia. We explained that the British Government were engaged in a process of consultation with a view to bringing Rhodesia to legal independence with the widest possible international acceptance.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka will be an important stage in these consultations. Subsequently, the British Government will put forward firm proposals on the constitutional arrangements to achieve a proper basis for legal independence for Rhodesia. In that task, I stress that we shall be guided by the six principles that have been supported by successive British

Governments in relation to Rhodesia. We shall aim to make the proposals comparable to the basis on which we granted independence to other former British territories in Africa. They will be addressed to all the parties to the conflict.
The Government's purpose will be to help those who wish to resolve their political problems by democratic and peaceful means. We cannot subscribe to a solution which seeks to substitute the bullet for the ballot box.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Government will in any circumstances be prepared to recognise the independence of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in the present circumstances, which enshrine, for the white minority, certain rights which cannot in any way be taken away from them? Those rights, as many hon. Members are aware, would be totally at variance with the terms upon which independence was granted to any other Commonwealth country.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman has heard, I have said that the proposal which we shall make will depend upon two things. The first is the matter of the six principles. Secondly, it will be similar to the basis upon which independence has been granted to other African States. In his own way the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we would decide whether the fifth principle, the test of acceptability, has been fulfilled by the elections which took place. I shall be frank with him. Although sometimes diplomatic process and frankness go ill together, we have not yet determined whether that is so. We are extremely anxious to try to take along as many as possible with us in bringing Rhodesia to legal independence. We believe that the path that we have chosen to that end is the better one.
I am aware that other people have already made that determination. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read carefully every word of the report of Lord Boyd, who is held in great affection in many British Commonwealth countries in Africa. In a chapter on the nature of the vote, the report states that
It was the intentions of the voter when he voted that we wished to probe and we are satisfied that the election did in fact constitute a kind of referendum on the constitution".


That was his view.
We have not yet decided on the matter, because we have wanted to go another way—a way that we believe will be better for Rhodesia in the longer run. It is a way that we believe will bring more countries along with us, and if we go along that consultation route it will be to the benefit of Rhodesia. It is a way in which we can gain that country's acceptance to legal independence.

Mr. James Johnson: I should like to ask a perfectly fair question at this stage of the right hon. Lady's speech. She talks of conferring legal independence and says that she does not expect to carry all with her. Will she answer a question that she has dodged on two Wednesday afternoons in succession, while sitting on that Front Bench beside her Lord Privy Seal? Will she tell the House whether she has met any other Commonwealth leader who, like herself, believes at this stage that it is possible to confer legal independence upon this State of Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have tried to answer that question in as much detail as possible. I shall shortly say something about the constitution. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have to go to Lusaka for further consultations. Therefore, I am not in a position to put detailed proposals to the House ahead of those consultations.
The progress that Rhodesia has made towards democracy in the past two years canont be brushed aside. At the same time, because it is in Rhodesia's own interest to be accepted fully into the international community, we must have regard to the views of other Governments. That is the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).
Many black Rhodesians realise the extent to which the country's economic future depends on the continued involvement of the white community and, consequently, on retaining their confidence. Some elements of the present constitution are based on provisions which have been accepted and implemented in virtually all other independence constitutions. For example, there are precedents for a measure of special representation for min-

ority communities, both white and Asian. However, there has been criticism of the blocking power of the white minority and of the character and powers of the public service commissions.
Our concern is to find a solution which, while acceptable to other Governments, will enable the white community to play a full part in the future of the country, a solution in which their skills and contribution are recognised, their confidence maintained and which will encourage them to stay.
At this point, we should like to make clear that we are wholly committed to genuine black majority rule in Rhodesia. We believe that it is possible in Rhodesia, as in other countries to which Britain has granted independence, to reconcile reasonable reassurance for the white community and the protection of their rights with black majority rule.
We feel deeply the need to do everything in Britain's power to bring an end to the war. Unfortunately, that does not depend on us alone. It depends on an equal disposition to do so among those who are engaged in the fighting.
There are those who seem to believe that
war is better than any negotiations
That remark was made by Mr. Nkomo on his arrival at the OAU summit earlier this month. Mr. Nkomo said to Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:
the war has reached such a stage that there can only be a settlement by military means. If there are to be talks, they will have to be carried out by generals meeting on the battlefield.
The British Government totally reject that view. Those who rely on force to achieve their ends must not have a veto over those who seek to advance their cause by democratic and constitutional means.
The need for peace is equally great among Rhodesia's neighbours. The Government intend to do all that they can to contribute to a solution which would be of benefit to the people of Zambia and Botswana as well as bringing to the people of Rhodesia, both black and white, a stable and peaceful future.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was delighted to hear my


right hon. Friend say that the proposals by the British Government will be put to all parties to the conflict. Will she undertake that in putting those proposals to all parties to the conflict she will expect all parties to call off the conflict while they are considering the proposals?

The Prime Minister: There is no longer any vestige of excuse for the conflict to continue. Most of us recognise that fact completely. I hope that at Lusaka we shall have the co-operation of other Commonwealth nations in calling off a war in which hundreds of Africans who had nothing to do with UDI are being killed and maimed weekly, their crops burned and their stock taken. There are some similarities between the situation in Rhodesia and that in Namibia. In both cases there is a choice between a solution by violence and a solution by peaceful agreement. There are also major differences. Britain has no direct responsibility for Namibia. We are one of five Western countries which have worked out in a process of long and arduous negotiations a settlement proposal which is designed to enable free and fair elections to take place in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control, leading to full independence with international recognition and support.
Perhaps the major difference compared with Rhodesia is that the proposal of the five Western countries has been accepted formally by all those concerned—South Africa, SWAPO, by virtually all the other Namibian parties, by the Security Council, by the remainder of the West and by the Third World.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the question of Rhodesia, will she clarify the Government's position on sanctions? She made a statement in Australia that has caused some confusion. Will she, before she goes to Lusaka, say what her intentions will be on sanctions in November?

The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that the top priority is to try to move Rhodesia to legal independence with wide international acceptance. If we bring Rhodesia to legal independence sanctions will fall because, I am advised, the United Nations sanctions motion depends upon there being a state of illegality in Rhodesia. I am the first to say that there is not much time left.

If we do not make progress towards legal independence within a reasonable time this year, I do not think there will be any better chance next year or the year after. I therefore regard the consultations at Lusaka and the proposals that we shall make in the light of some of those consultations as crucial. If we are successful, the problem of sanctions will not arise. I do not think that I can add to that.
Before I was interrupted I was referring to Namibia. I said that agreement had been reached but that there were difficulties in respect of precise interpretation and implementation of the agreement. The current obstacles are about how the SWAPO armed forces inside Namibia at the time of the ceasefire are to be dealt with and how SWAPO's adherence to the ceasefire and to the other provisions of the settlement proposal are to be monitored in the countries that border on Namibia.
The five countries concerned have devoted intensive efforts to trying to resolve these matters in a way which all concerned could accept. We agree that there should be a further round of more detailed talks, and in the past fortnight the five have put to the South African Government suggestions about how these might be best handled. It was announced this morning that Sir James Murray, the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, has been appointed as the envoy of the five to conduct these talks with the South Africans. A great deal is at stake there. A success in Namibia—a success for peace and negotiation—could have tremendous effects on the prospects for peaceful solutions to other problems in Southern Africa. It could affect the whole relationship between South Africa and the rest of the world. By the same token a failure would have the most dangerous and negative effects for all our efforts in that part of the world. It is for these reasons that the five will spare no effort to try to bring about the agreement which we all seek.
If there are to be peaceful settlements to the problems of Southern Africa, the role of South Africa is critical.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Have the South African Government accepted the size and composition of the United Nations body which will supervise and control the transition?

The Prime Minister: The details in the interpretation of that agreement are what have caused the problem. Quite a number of soundings have been taken. Any further negotiations are being handled by Sir James Murray on behalf of the five. It is not possible at the moment to go any further.
I was referring to the critical role of South Africa in the settlement of the problems. The policy of apartheid, with its emphasis on separating peoples rather than bringing them together, and all the harshness required to impose it on the South African population is wholly unacceptable. Within South Africa, as in the outside world, there is a growing recognition that change must come. It is in everyone's interest that change should come without violence. We must work by fostering contact, not by ostracism. We must be ready to acknowledge and welcome progress when it is made, even when it may appear slow and inadequate. We must not drive the South Africans into turning their backs on the world. We need to recognise the immensity and complexity of the problems they face. We must encourage progress in working out solutions to those problems.
The heart of the problem in Southern Africa in the immediate future will be Rhodesia. That is so for two reasons. The first is that if it can be given peace Rhodesia stands at the threshold of resumed economic growth and prosperity. That can be of great benefit to its neighbours, some of whom have been less favoured by nature and by circumstances. Rhodesia can feed others as well as itself. Greater prosperity in the region can bring greater stability and can reduce the tensions on which terrorism feeds and from which it profits.
The second reason is that it is vital to the future of Southern Africa that the democratic process should be seen to succeed and that terrorism should be seen to fail. Whatever further progress remains to be achieved, the plain fact is that Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has moved far along the road, by means of elections, towards building up a democratic society founded on racial partnership. This achievement must not be thrown away or discarded in favour of the rule of force. I look forward to the consultations in Lusaka, believing that they can help us in our task of creat-

ing an independent Rhodesia—a Rhodesia that will win that widespread acceptance from peoples of good will that is so important for its future.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am grateful to those who arranged the business of the House for giving us the opportunity of discussing this important matter, and to the Prime Minister for coming here at what must be an extremely arduous time for her to give us some indication of the policy that she intends to follow when she meets her fellow Heads of the Commonwealth. That applies especially to the question of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
It is not my desire this afternoon to make her task more difficult. This is a problem of deep concern to all of us, and if we need any reminder of the gravity of the developing situation it would have come, surely, in the two dreadful events of the last seven days. In one the whole staff of about 50 persons in a Roman Catholic mission near the Mozambique border were abducted. The second was the killing by Government troops of 183 of their own black auxiliaries who were being moved for the purpose of retraining, and most of whom were supporters of Sithole. In those circumstances, all of us must speak frankly but with the desire to help the situation and to try to make the task of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as easy as possible.
I must apologise to the House for the fact that because, unavoidably, of arrangements made for today I shall be unable to be present throughout the debate, and I hope that hon. Members will excuse me.
First, I should like to say a word about the Commonwealth conference itself. These meetings are extremely valuable because the Commonwealth embraces people from most, if not all, parts of the globe—from rich nations and poor, from North and from South, from large countries and small—all of whom have to some extent a shared history, and all of whom—and this is perhaps the most important point that emerges when the 30 to 40 Prime Ministers meet—speak a common language. There are no interpreters' booths. All this in itself has been of singular significance.
The Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, as we all know—we have had recent illustration of it—attaches great weight to her responsibilities to the member countries of the Commonwealth, and in her person she forges a personal link between all the members of the Commonwealth in a way that cannot be achieved by any other method.
I am sure that I carry the House with me thus far, but I must say this to hon. Members on the Government Benches. I think that there has been a tendency in some parts of the Conservative Party over recent years to dismiss the Commonwealth as being a body of little value. It is an attitude which has sprung partly from the fact of the end of Empire and partly, if I may say so, from their love affair with the European Community in the 1960s and early '70s.
That attitude is a mistake. Our experience shows that for a medium-sized country such as Britain, as we are now, working in a number of international forums, whether in the United Nations itself, in UNCTAD or in conferences such as that on the law of the sea, the links between Commonwealth countries and the personal contacts which have been built up among them have been of immense help in the process of understanding and agreement.
In our negotiations in the European Community on agricultural and other matters, our membership of the Commonwealth and the fact that the Commonwealth countries believe that we understand and speak for them on a number of such issues is very highly valued by them. I speak, for example, of countries such as Botswana, Barbados and Mauritius. The knowledge that there have been long historical ties between Britain and those countries has meant that they feel that they have a friend at court in the Community.
We should never forget that and I am sure that the Government will not, but I emphasise that we must stand firmly for a strong Commonwealth and Britain must supply a great deal of the impetus behind it. Therefore, from these Benches we hope that the Commonwealth conference which is about to begin will be very successful in strengthening Commonwealth ties and that Britain, through the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, will be active and will exert every

influence to make the conference a success.
However, as the right hon. Lady has already deduced, the issue which will be most inflammatory is the one on which she spent most of her time, namely, the disagreement about the future of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and it is to this and this alone that I shall speak this afternoon.
The first point to note is, I think, the one that Lord Harlech was told and which the Prime Minister reported to us a few minutes ago. She will find that she is constantly told that the legal and moral responsibility for solving this problem belongs to her Government. But, because many of the Commonwealth countries say that we have by our own default been unable to solve the problem, a new element has come into it, and this is part of the problem, as she will find. They will say that she must take the initiative, but they will say also "Because you have failed to solve this problem, other events have taken place which have resulted in some responsibility falling upon us."
That will be said especially by some of the front-line States, in particular, Zambia, because Zambia feels deeply and strongly about the severe effect that what she regards as our failure to bring an end to the rebellion, as it is called, in Rhodesia has had upon her trade, upon the living standards of her people and in the hardship and loss which has been caused. So there is this dilemma. The Commonwealth countries expect Britain to give a lead but at the same time they say "This is partly our responsibility and we expect fully to be brought into the picture."
This afternoon, I think, the right hon. Lady has made some impression upon that situation. I must tell her that I have thought that she would be well advised—I think that she has begun to do it this afternoon—to play down the impression that is around that the United Kingdom intends to take its own decision unilaterally on these matters irrespective of the views of the Commonwealth.
The right hon. Lady said today that she intends to try to carry as many members of the Commonwealth or the international community with her as possible. I am glad to hear it. But there has been an impression around—perhaps it has not sprung from her and it may have sprung


from members of her party—that somehow the Commonwealth conference is a bit of an embarrassing interlude for the Government because it prevents them from taking an early decision on sanctions and in due course on recognition of the Muzorewa Government.
It would be folly if that impression were allowed to prevail, and I think that the right hon. Lady has gone some way today to correct it. But here I must revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) regarding the Prime Minister's interview in Australia. She there said that an order to renew sanctions would not pass in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Indeed, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has put his own gloss on that and has gone further in his interpretation in an article in The Daily Telegraph yesterday. He said that the Prime Minister's statement in Canberra amounted to a repudiation of sanctions. That was his word, a repudiation. Is that so?
When my hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister the question, I thought that she ascended into the clouds. I got no clear answer from her as to what she meant and as to her attitude. I do not press the right hon. Lady unduly this afternoon because she has to go and discuss these matters with Commonwealth Prime Ministers, but I repeat her words:
British sanctions",
she said,
would lapse in November and we doubt very much whether a renewal of sanctions would go through the British Parliament.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I dispute that conclusion. I believe that if the Government were to recommend a continuation of sanctions, such an order would pass. It would have full support from the Labour Benches, as I have already told the right hon. Lady, and it would, I assume, receive considerable support from her own followers.
A sanctions order which was backed by the Government would pass easily in the House, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will not shelter behind an excuse of that sort. She may have meant that there would be a division of opinion in her own party on the matter. We have noted from some of the cheers this afternoon that that is so. There has always been a divi-

sion of opinion in the Conservative Party on the issue. But that is not the same as conveying the impression in Australia and to the whole Commonwealth that the order would automatically be defeated.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I think that the words used in Australia were "the British Parliament" and not "the House of Commons", to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that he will agree that there is a certain difference there.

Mr. Callaghan: I quoted the exact words that were used, and I now repeat them:
We doubt very much whether a renewal of sanctions would go through the Briitsh Parliament.
That is what I said. But certainly it starts here in the House of Commons. This is where the sanctions order will be taken. If, of course, another place were to decide differently, that would be a different matter. I do not wish to get into that constitutional issue this afternoon—we have too many others to trouble ourselves with—but I do not proceed on the assumption that if the Government of the day decided that internationally it was of the greatest importance and in the interests of this country that sanctions should continue, the House of Lords would take a view different from that of the House of Commons. At least, I trust not.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It would be the last thing that it did.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish to press this matter a little further, and I press it because I believe it to be vital to everyone in the House and outside. Are we to understand that the right hon. Lady would like the sanctions order to be renewed but she fears that it would be defeated? If that is it, I believe that she is wrong. Or does she really mean that the Government's policy is not to renew sanctions? If the latter, she is dissembling, and she is using the attitude of some hon. Members in her own party as a cover to shield herself from what would be, in my view, a majority in the House to renew.
We may not be able to get an answer today, but we shall need to know when the House returns because there will be very little time afterwards. It is as well


to put the right hon. Lady on notice and to make it clear where she stands. Although I do not press her this afternoon, I promise her that she will be pressed hard in Lusaka. The Commonwealth Heads of Government will not be easily brushed aside on this issue. All the reports that reach me from overseas confirm that her interview in Australia has made her task at the Commonwealth conference much more difficult. The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do the suspicion that can be created, and has been created, among other Commonwealth members. She has been informed of it. I believe that the interview in Australia was a self-inflicted wound, and it is one which I regret.
The Foreign Secretary has taken a rather wider view. He said in another place recently that the election in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, whatever its defects, has created a new situation and that we should take advantage of that. I do not disagree with him. I have emphasised the same point in my contacts with African and other Commonwealth leaders, including my conversations with Bishop Muzorewa. I was glad to hear the right hon. Lady pick up that theme this afternoon.
The Foreign Secretary's view, which he put clearly, is that the greatest objectives are a peaceful settlement, an end to the war, a return to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia of legal independence and the widest possible international acceptance. I agree with those aims. No one would disagree with them. However, that is not the end of the story. That is the easiest part. The hard part comes when the Government and the Prime Minister have to consider how the conditions are to be created that will lead to a peaceful settlement and an end to the war.
The Prime Minister spoke about the bullet and the ballot. Who could disagree with those remarks as a general principle? However, do the Government share the Opposition's view that Mr. Nkomo, Mr. Mugabe and the Patriotic Front must have an important role in the discussions about the settlement if it is to bring peace and is to endure? Surely that is a fundamental question.
I have referred to the impression, which I do not say the right hon. Lady herself has given, that Britain intends to proceed unilaterally to recognise the new State

when the Government are satisfied that the six principles have been observed. This afternoon the right hon. Lady said that there must be a second condition. She said that we must carry with us as many countries as possible. I understand the first principle. It is an arguable position for Her Majesty's Government to take. However, other elements have entered into the dispute, as she partially recognised this afternoon, since the six principles were laid down, namely, the existence of large bands or armies of armed men in Zambia and Mozambique who have no present intention of laying down their arms or subscribing to a settlement that is reached with Bishop Muzorewa's Government on their own. That is the problem.
I make these remarks now so that before the Prime Minister goes to Africa we shall have considered the consequences of the actions that she takes there. Let us suppose that a Government were to return from Rhodesia and to say "We have used our best endeavours. We believe that the six principles have been observed. Alas, we cannot carry the Commonwealth with us, or large numbers of the Commonwealth. A, B and C agree with us, but the great majority do not." Suppose that the right hon. Lady was to proceed along those lines and lift sanctions and in clue course, presumably, as she said in Australia, recognise Bishop Muzorewa's Government. That course would ensure a long-standing hostility to Britain among many members of the Commonwealth and among the United Nations.
I do not want to put it too high, but another factor is the impact on our trading relations with some parts of the world. We should not be put off a course that we believe to be right because of that, but we must take it into account as a factor. I do not know what the truth is of the stories that are coming back from Africa of British firms being denied the right to tender.
Leaving that aside, what would follow from the gesture of lifting sanctions without getting the consent of other countries which now, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, feel more involved and have a greater sense of responsibility because we have failed—we have all failed—over the past 15 years to solve the problem? What would be the consequences?

Mr. Hooley: Mr. Hooley rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to follow through my train of thought. When I have done so, I shall give way to him with pleasure.
If the Government took the course that I have described, would they not be morally committed to assist Bishop Muzorewa's Government to survive? What form would that assistance take? No doubt it would take the form of money, technical assistance and credits. Would it go further? Would that gesture of solidarity taken in opposition to so many lead to the supply of arms? Would British troops be sent to stiffen Bishop Muzorewa's armed forces? Would British troops be involved in an armed struggle with the Patriotic Front?
These are not fanciful questions. These are the issues that the Government will have to face when they take their vital decision whether to lift sanctions if they cannot persuade others to support that course. I give the Government early notice that the House will expect to know where the Government will stand on the sequence of events that will derive from the attitude that is taken about the lifting of sanctions and the recognition of Bishop Muzorewa.
What would be the end of the road? None of us in this House will forget that the involvement of the United States in Vietnam began with the sending of a handful of American advisers there by President Kennedy. We all know where that ended. The United States was drawn in inexorably. The only basis on which the Government could proceed with any hope of success in these circumstances would be to persuade Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe that further armed struggle would be fruitless and that the front-line States would accept the British Government's conclusion.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: How?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that I should give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the strict sense, we cannot lift sanctions? The only body that can determine the sanctions issue is the Security Council of the United Nations. If we were to act unilaterally we should

be in breach of our obligations under the Charter and would be defying an action of the United Nations which was instigated and initiated by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Callaghan: I did not wish to go down that by-way, although my hon. Friend has raised an important issue, namely, where our international obligations begin and end. The sanctions orders preceded the resolution of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the way in which we have carried out our obligations to the United Nations so far has been through the annual renewal of sanctions. It could well be argued, although I prefer not to go down the road any further, that we would be in breach of our international obligations if we unilaterally decided not to renew the order. I hope that I shall be forgiven for not pursuing that issue any further.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has sketched a most important scenario. However, as all the forms of aid that he thinks might possibly be supplied by a British Government subsequent to a settlement of which he may disapprove are now being supplied by the Eastern Powers—for example, Cuba and Russia—what is the Opposition's view on that type of aid and its continued escalation?

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, I am not interested in trying to score debating points. I am trying to find the least unsatisfactory course and path forward. I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's intervention later. In fact, I was about to come to it. Before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, I was about to say that if the Government cannot persuade Nkomo, Mugabe and the front-line States that the continuation of the armed struggle is fruitless and we recognise and we lift sanctions, we shall get the worst of all worlds. We shall be involved. We are bound to be involved. It would be morally wrong for the Government not to become involved on Bishop Muzorewa's side, having encouraged him against the Patriotic Front.

Mr. David Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I prefer not to give way. I want to have a connected theme.
In the scenario that I have painted, where would Nkomo and Mugabe look? They would look, of course, to where they are looking now. They would look increasingly to the Soviet Union and to Cuba. At present both countries are helping them. Both countries, especially the Soviet Union, are adopting a low profile in Africa. There is more than one reason for that. I shall give what I consider to be the main reason. It is that they, especially the Soviet Union, do not wish to jeopardise the ratification by the United States of the strategic arms limitation agreement. Our interests in this matter coincide with those of the Soviet Union. The Opposition and the Government, I know, believe strongly that that agreement should be ratified. I hope that it will be.
I am projecting my mind forward. What would be the attitude of the Soviet Union and Cuba in the following circumstances: in a few months' time the SALT agreement has been ratified and is out of the way; Britain has made a gesture—this is a reasonable assumption—by refusing to lay the sanctions order again, and therefore she is not committed to sanctions against Rhodesia; and the Patriotic Front, knowing that in those circumstances it had nothing to gain from the West or from this country, appealed for armed assistance on a massive scale from the Soviet Union? How do the Government evaluate the response that the Soviet Union would make in those circumstances, having got SALT under its belt? What does the House think its response would be?
If the United States and the United Kingdom stood together, we might face the Soviet style. It has been done before. But if we were together, there would be a catastrophe in which the United Kingdom would be immersed up to the neck and embarked on a long-drawn-out war which we should not win. The right hon. Lady's attitude, therefore, at the Commonwealth conference, and the policy that follows in the ensuing months, will determine which of those paths Britain intends to tread. As the right hon. Member for Pavilion said in his article, which I have read with care, the right hon. Lady really has very few cards left to play. One of the cards that she had to play—the one called sanc-

tions and recognition—has, I am afraid, been partially thrown away because of the impression that was given in Australia.
The Lusaka conference need not, and must not, be just a period of recriminations, sterile debate and who-did-what. There will be some experienced Prime Ministers present, together with our own Prime Minister. Some of them have considerable experience of working together on the problems of race. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sir Shridath Ramphal, has also had much experience in those areas.
When the Prime Ministers are assembled in Lusaka they will be geographically and physically as close to the problem and to the central point of the controversy as ever they are likely to be. I urge the right hon. Lady to consider whether some quiet private initiative cannot be taken under the umbrella of the Commonwealth by some of the Prime Ministers present. The right hon. Lady said that Lord Harlech met Mr. Mugabe and representatives of Mr. Nkomo. I hope that she will take the opportunity of meeting and talking, if meetings can be arranged, with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe.
In this situation the political and the military aspects of the struggle are intertwined. Lord Carver gave his opinion in another place the other day after his experience as Resident Commissioner-designate. He said that it was impossible to make any progress in the political field unless one took account of the military aspect. With respect, it is not sufficient just to use the phrase "ballots and not bullets". We must take account of the fact that these men are in the field; they are armed. Somehow they must be brought to a peaceful conclusion.
Let me sum up. I bear in mind that our primary concern must be the welfare of all the people, black and white, living in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and we recognise that progress has been made by Bishop Muzorewa's Government. We think that the Prime Minister's policy emphasis is wrong in its present objective of lifting sanctions, followed by recognition of the Muzorewa Government. The first objective should be to work to bring the armed struggle to an end through a political


settlement that will involve all the leaders both inside and outside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia—that is, the Muzorewa Government and the Patriotic Front.
For that purpose the Prime Minister should seek the co-operation in any appropriate way of the other Prime Ministers who will be present at the Commonwealth conference. In our view an essential step—I agree with the right hon. Lady—is to make further changes in the constitution, the composition of the Government and the powers of the black Ministers. The Government must work on the assumption that the Patriotic Front has the capacity to keep the war going for a long time. The Patriotic Front believes that it will win. At least I should say that it cannot lose.
The constitution has not been voted upon. That is a necessary condition for a settlement before recognition, but there should be changes in it before it is submitted to the people. At that stage a vote in favour in some form would constitute a better basis for international recognition. In all that the Government must work closely with the United States.
The House will recognise that I do not—I hope that my tone has shown this—underestimate either the difficulties of the Prime Minister or the risks of the course that I recommend. Nor am I over-painting the prospects of success, whatever course is taken. My conclusion is that a policy of not renewing sanctions, unless events have changed between now and November, and doing it in isolation, would almost certainly be in contravention of our international commitments; would be dangerous for this country and disruptive of the Commonwealth; would give false hope to the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia; would not end the war; and might lead to a collapse of the structure of that part of the African continent.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are eight Privy Councillors who wish to catch my eye and five hon. Members who hope to make maiden speeches. There is a much longer list of Government supporters on this occasion than there was of Opposition speakers in the debate on regional policy. The Privy Councillors will place a long-established tradition in

jeopardy if they are not brief and do not allow others to speak.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: In the interests of brevity, I propose to deal in my short speech solely with the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and not with the other issues that were raised by the Prime Minister.
It is right for me to begin by saying that the House has—perhaps not unusually but rarely—been treated to two extremely thoughtful and logical opening speeches, for which we are grateful. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition put the issues before us with great clarity. That will, I hope, enable the rest of us to be even briefer than we should otherwise have wished to be.
There are two important differences between the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia now and that of any other emerging country under the British Commonwealth. The constitution was not put to the people as a whole, as the Prime Minister said. The acceptability of the present constitution was never tested in that way. It was put only to the white minority. Nor was the constitution negotiated at a constitutional conference by the British Government with all the parties involved. In fact the present constitution—we must never forget this—flows from the proposals of an illegal regime in rebellion against the Crown. That is what makes the present constitution intrinsically difficult to accept, even if we accept the view of Lord Boyd—I personally do not—that the election process itself was some kind of referendum. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is surely right to go on reminding us that the new regime in Salisbury exists. She was right to say that that was a major advance.
My conversations with Bishop Muzorewa over the years have left me with the impression that he is, indeed, a sincere man drawn into politics almost against his will, who plays a distinguished role in his country and who now finds himself leading the Government. My impression is that he accepts parts of the constitution which he probably finds objectionable. That is part of a political process with which we are familiar and of which we have all had experience. It


is, of course, the art of compromise. I do not dispute that.
In a debate in the other place some months ago I heard two previous Foreign Secretaries, Lord George-Brown and Lord Home, each say that he would have accepted the present constitution in his time. Indeed, well they might, and well might this House. We have to remember that the present constitution, with its 10-year entrenched clauses, and so on, might have been perfectly appropriate in the late 1960s or early 1970s, but events have moved on since then. That constitution was not on offer at that time, and many of the African population, and many of the African leaders, took Mr. Smith at his face value when he said that there would not be African majority rule in his lifetime, or when he said on other occasions that there would not be African majority rule in a thousand years.
That is why we had the development of the armed struggle. We have only reached the present compromise constitution, and Mr. Smith has only changed his mind to the great extent that admittedly he has, because of the success of the armed struggle in 1977, 1978 and 1979. When we find, therefore, that those who in their movements brought about that degree of change—those who have been banned and sent out of the country—were excluded from the recent election process, we can understand why so many people inside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia today view the Government of Bishop Muzorewa in precisely the same way as the French Resistance viewed the Vichy Government in France. It may not be a point of view that we share, but unless we understand that point of view, and how it has been arrived at, we cannot grasp why it is that there are those outside who are continuing the war against the Government.
One of my fears, after my last visit to Rhodesia in January of this year, is that the bitterness against the new Government of Bishop Muzorewa could be precisely because it is an African-headed Government, so that the bitterness may be even stronger than that which existed against the white minority Government. That is the danger that we have to recognise.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is not the right hon. Gentleman making

light of the fact that Bishop Muzorewa and his party were elected partly because they supported the constitution? Secondly, is it not vital that there should be strong safeguards for the white community in order to stop the exodus, currently running at about 1,000 a month, from increasing? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at those points?

Mr. Steel: I have never disputed at any time that there should he guarantees to the white minority. As for saying that Bishop Muzorewa's party was elected because it supported the constitution, I remind the hon. Member that all the parties in the election supported the constitution. The parties which did not were not allowed to take part in the election.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steel: I am sorry. I listened to the appeal from the Chair and I promised to be brief. I want to finish as quickly as I can.
It will not do to adopt the attitude—which is to be found in some parts of the Conservative Party—that because there is a black face at the head of the Government things will be easy from now on. The fact is that the liberation struggle has been supported by the frontline States. They have, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly said—and he also came into the firing line of criticism, as all British Prime Ministers have—been critical because they have suffered, their economies have suffered terribly and their people have suffered terribly as a result of what they regard as the failure of successive British Governments to bring an end to the rebellion.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler rose—

Mr. Steel: I ask the hon. Gentleman, please, not to interrupt me. I promised the Chair that I would be brief and I am determined to set an example in this respect.
We have also to bear in mind at the same time the report of the Bingham commission and to understand the impact that that has had in Tanzania and Zambia, as I found when I was there earlier this year. We are still forced, at the end of the day, to recognise that the Prime Minister was right when she said that those


who rely on force cannot exercise a veto, but where did the primary violence come from? It came from the injustice imposed by the Smith regime when it sought to exercise a veto on the orderly transfer to majority rule, towards which every other colony under the British Crown had moved. That is where the primary violence arose. The injustice was the primary violence, and the secondary violence followed.
This Government are in no different position from the previous one. They still have to seek reconciliation, a ceasefire and the end of the war. It will not be helped by the threat to lift sanctions. I do not want to make much of the Canberra interview, although the Leader of the Opposition did so. That is the only criticism that I have of his speech. It was not a prepared statement, it was an off-the-cuff interview, and all of us have been caught out at different times with off-the-cuff interviews. Let us forget that. I much prefer the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon to what she said in Canberra.
It is right that the Government should take whatever initiative they can to bring about reconciliation. I, like the Prime Minister, regret some of the utterances of Mr. Nkomo. As I told Mr. Mugabe when I met him in Mozambique, I regret that he has not travelled more widely, to London and to America, to put his point of view, because I think that today he carries far more support—although this is a matter of opinion—inside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia than does Mr. Nkomo.
The Government must be sensitive to the feelings of the Commonwealth as a whole. They must accept that at the end of the day a successful, independent Zimbabwe-Rhodesia must have international acceptance. It will not succeed if it has simply British acceptance and that of a few other member countries.
I end by wishing the Prime Minister well in her journey to Lusaka. There are no easy solutions to offer, except the path of seeking reconciliation between those fighting outside and those currently in control inside. That is the only path that she can follow.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I think that there is general understand-

ing in the House about the importance of Southern Africa to the economies of the OECD countries, and not least to our own, in terms of mineral resources, in terms of investments made out there, and in terms of its geographical position. There is also a very widespread understanding—the Leader of the Opposition shares it as much as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—of the threat of the Soviet imperialist thrust into Southern Africa, already achieved by the colonisation of Angola, the establishment of a protectorate over Mozambique, and the back-up of the civil war in Namibia and Rhodesia.
The issue between the two sides of the House, if I may put it that way, is how we are to resist this imperialist thrust. It was, I think, the view of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister and of President Carter that they must at all costs avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union in Southern Africa. They therefore tried to achieve what I might call a Yalta-type solution, that is to say, a settlement in Namibia and Rhodesia that would give an important role to SWAPO in Namibia and to the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia—and, if need be, a leading role, as happened with the Communist parties in the countries of Eastern Europe, as happened as a result of the Yalta agreement.
We had just now from the Leader of the Opposition, if I may say so, a speech which was the quintessence of appeasement and almost of what in wartime we called "collaboration". The ghost of Neville Chamberlain—and perhaps even of Pierre Laval—would have nodded approvingly. The right hon. Gentleman was saying to us "Never mind about principles. Yes, they have fulfilled the six principles. Yes, they have had an election, and we may not be able to argue too much about it, but think of the risk that we should be running by recognising what is, in reality, a legitimate Government. We should be running the risk of a possible Vietnam in Southern Africa."
To begin with, I think that the idea of a Vietnam in Southern Africa is rubbish, and I should like very briefly to say why. We have seen the impotence of the frontline Presidents to defend themselves against the raids of the embattled Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. We have seen the


total failure of the Patriotic Front to disrupt its elections. This does not look to me like a Vietnam. If the Soviets wanted to take on—with their new East German Afrika Korps—the combination of Rhodesia and South Africa, they would have to send a sizeable expeditionary force to the area. They would not get very far with local forces alone.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: While my right hon. Friend is discussing the attitude of the Patriotic Front, will he not agree that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was entirely wrong a few minutes ago when he asserted that the Patriotic Front was prevented from taking part in the election? That was not the case. Does he not agree that Mr. Sithole, Bishop Muzorewa and others made quite clear before the election that the Patriotic Front was free to play a full part in the election at any time? I have a quotation here from the Boyd report to prove it.

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) is absolutely right. The Patriotic Front was repeatedly invited to take part in the election and, even since the election, Bishop Muzorewa has said in public that he is perfectly ready to allow its leaders to come back, if they came back unarmed, to take part in the political life of that country.
It is clear enough that the Anglo-American proposals put forward by the previous Government are dead. I fear that the Waldheim proposals for Namibia will also be dead shortly. Here I would like to say a word about Namibia. I was in South Africa when the British ambassador presented the five-Power proposals to the South African Government. These were described—I remember the words because I saw the document—as "final and definitive." The South African Government accepted those proposals on the understanding that no further proposals would be put forward and no further concessions would be asked for.
It is stretching the imagination beyond the bounds of credibility to suggest that what Mr. Waldheim has since proposed falls within the ambit of the five proposals. It simply does not. Sir James Murray is at present in South Africa dis-

cussing these matters and I do not want to make his task more difficult. It agreement can be reached, we shall all be delighted. However, what I would say is that it would be dishonourable for the British Government to go back on their "final and definitive" proposals and lend their support to asking for further concessions. It is equally unthinkable that we should support sanctions against South Africa if it failed to accept the new demands of the United Nations.
In the debate on the Address I ventured to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Government would be well advised to recognise the Muzorewa Government as soon as it was appointed—that is to say, the first week of June. If the Government had done so there would have been a storm of protest, but there is a big difference between the protests that people make against an accomplished fact and the protests that they make when they think that their protests may well prevent what they want to prevent.
Because we did not grasp the nettle—I suspect that my right hon. Friend wanted to do so—entrenched positions have been adopted by the different African leaders. We had the first dose at the Organisation of African Unity and we shall get the next one in Lusaka. There will be more at the meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations and again at the meeting of the non-aligned conference in Havana. Each time it is more difficult for the people who have adopted entrenched positions to retreat. I suspect that we may have to pay a higher price, in the shape of reprisals in Nigeria and elsewhere, than we would have had to pay had we taken a decision at once.
The Government have made it plain that they will not make their own proposals until after the conference in Lusaka. We all know that the Government will have a rough ride, and we wish them well in facing the storm that is ahead. The Government will be in the dock. There may well be massive demonstrations in the streets. The portly shadow of Mr. Nkomo will be in the background, if not in the foreground. There will be the constant anxiety not to embarrass Her Majesty the Queen. But the test of the skill and determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be


whether she can emerge from this situation without having tied her hands. The Prime Minister can be sure that the African leaders at the Commonwealth conference will do everything they can to tie her hands in advance. She must resist that at all costs.
We must speak of the British proposals in a speculative sense, because they have not yet been put forward and we shall not be in the House when they are put forward. But we are all agreed—even the African leaders—that there is a new reality about what has happened in Rhodesia. What sticks in the throat of the front-line Presidents is this: they know that there has been a free and fair election; they know that there is a black Cabinet and a black Parliament—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Nonsense.

Mr. Amery: —but what the front-line Presidents do not like is the fact that it is difficult, under the existing constitution, for revolutionary change or a military coup d'etat to take place. They support the Patriotic Front because they are on its side—yes—but also because they are afraid for themselves. They are afraid that a successful, multi-racial pro-Western, liberal-oriented State in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia would have a destabilising effect on their own ramshackle Governments. Therefore, they have fastened on not the voting, not the Cabinet or the Parliament, but three particular issues.
The first is the ability of the white representatives in the Parliament to block an amendment to the constitution for eight to 10 years. In many African countries constitutions have been legally amended to make way for a one-party regime. Under the constitution of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia this could not be done. Should we complain? Does independence really mean a licence to introduce revolution by one vote in Parliament? I do not think many of us would believe that.
The front-line Presidents also object to the public service commissions which determine that, for 10 years or so, promotion will be by merit only and not by ministerial favour. Their object is

not only to maintain standards but to prevent a putsch or coup d'etat.
There is then the issue of personality, the issue of Mr. Ian Smith. This is an emotional issue in the House and, I suspect, in the Foreign Office. It is much less an emotional issue in Africa. The Africans know that Ian Smith is the chief of the white tribe in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. [Interruption.] They know that as long as he is in the Government Bishop Muzorewa can count on the support of the white population. If Ian Smith were to go prematurely—when there is a settlement I have no doubt that he will go—the white population would divide or split. This is exactly what the Patriotic Front would like to see, because it could be very dangerous to the stability of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Amery: I will not give way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. I am sure that he wishes to continue with his speech.

Mr. Amery: I must keep my promise to the Chair and not be a minute longer than is necessary.
If we are to talk about too many white officers in Rhodesia, let us talk about the East German white generals on the other side of the Iron Curtain. We might also remember that it was not a bad thing, when the first two Labour Governments were in power in this country, that the bulk of members of the Civil Service, the Army and the police were, generally speaking, Conservative or Liberal.

Mr. Hughes: They still are.

Mr. Amery: Bishop Muzorewa's experience of other countries in Africa has taught him the danger of constitutions being torn up before the ink was dry on the paper, and of a putsch being carried out by officers. He cannot understand our hesitations. We have fulfilled the six principles. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have said so more explicitly. Lord Home,


who drafted five of those principles, confirmed that they meet the bill so far as he is concerned. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), who drafted the sixth, said the same thing in a television programme that he and I did together. I am also a little surprised that my right hon. Friend did not entirely endorse Lord Boyd's view that the test of acceptability implied virtually a referendum on the constitution. Perhaps, because she is going to Lusaka, she wanted to hesitate.
I see no sense in the idea that we should now call a constitutional conference to confer independence through the normal colonial procedure. Rhodesia was never a colony in the ordinary sense. Its status was much more akin to that of the self-governing dominions whose independence we recognised under the statute of Westminster without attempting to tamper with their constitutions in any way.
We cannot weigh the Patriotic Front and the Muzorewa Government in the same scale. One is the result of a self-determination exercise resulting from a general election. The other is not only an illegal opposition; it has proved incapable of upsetting the general election. It would be ludicrous to suggest another test of acceptability.
The only argument is whether there would be advantage in trying to modify the constitution so as to secure wider recognition. If the modifications were cosmetic they would convince nobody; if they were substantial they could be immensely damaging to what has already been achieved in Salisbury.
It may be that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will be ingenious enough to find something that is neither cosmetic nor substantial but will paper the cracks. It will be very difficult. Therefore, I hope that the Government will heed the wise words of Lord Home and Lord Boyd—the most experienced elder statesmen in our party on African matters—both of whom have said "Be very careful in tampering with the constitution. It is a very delicate plant that was achieved with very great difficulty."
I am sure that my right hon. Friend and her colleagues are genuine in their desire to build on the achievement. But

the delay in recognising risks undermining the very foundations of that achievement. We must rid ourselves of certain illusions. We may not be able to achieve a political settlement with the Patriotic Front. That may not be possible, because if Moscow does not want peace there will not be peace. It is time for a new approach.
Here I congratulate my right hon. Friend sincerely on what she said in Australia about sanctions. The significance of what she said, was, I believe, that in the new situation it would be quite wrong to have an adversary relationship with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. After what has been done out there, whether or not it fully satisfies our requirements, we ought not to look upon the new leaders as adversaries. We ought to want to work with them. The time is past for negative pressure to be exercised on the Salisbury Government.
As I understand her, my right hon. Friend said that recognition might take a little longer to achieve. If she means a Bill to go through this House, that is perfectly true. But recognition is not an act. It is a process. We and the Americans have regular diplomatic contact with the Salisbury Government. So do the South Africans. Zambia has opened up the border and Zaire has been trading openly for some time. When the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is received at Camp David by the President and at the State Department by Mr. Vance; when he is received by my right hon. Friend in London, as well as by the Foreign Secretary, we are nine-tenths of the way towards recognition. That is absolutely as it should be.
What we want is a positive approach to the final recognition, not a grudging one. There will be those who will try to say "Keep the new State at arm's length. Do not let us get involved". That is the view of the Leader of the Opposition. The attitude is "For goodness' sake, do not let us get committed to the Muzorewa regime". I take the opposite view. We must have a genuine and generous act of reconciliation. We must he ready to give aid, so far as we can afford it, to give political and diplomatic support, and even the supply of weapons if the other side does not make peace.
There is far more at stake here than just the fate of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. If


a successful Zimbabwe-Rhodesia comes into being—pro-Western and liberal in its politics and economics—the impact on South Africa could be enormous—not on South Africa alone but on the ramshackle dictatorships in Mozambique, Zambia and Angola. We have a chance to make Zimbabwe-Rhodesia the rock on which the tide of Soviet imperialism can be broken and turned. We have the chance to open a new chapter in the history of this area which is vital to us and to the West. I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister "The responsibility now rests on you, with the House in recess, to a greater extent than ever. You have the chance. You may never have it again."

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) belongs to a family that has had a long association with the Commonwealth. Indeed, it was his own father who contributed to the position whereby every member of the British Empire was a free-born denizen. As a result, the new Commonwealth of today has been built up. I have yearned for the time when the right hon. Gentleman would make a contribution that would strengthen the Commonwealth. But, regrettably, each speech that I have heard him deliver has failed. I am sorry about that.
The situation in Rhodesia today is different from what it was when I first met Mr. Ian Smith in Rhodesia in 1964. We now have a black Prime Minister with an African majority in Parliament. From a British point of view, this is what we have been struggling to achieve for many years. But will it work? In my judgment, I am afraid that it will not do so because it will not satisfy the Commonwealth or world opinion. For that reason, we must consider the position as it is seen by others.
The Government who have been elected in Rhodesia have what we in Britain have been hoping to see for many years past—an African Prime Minister with African majority rule. The white Rhodesians took part in a referendum. The constitution that was adopted came about because of that. The black Rhodesians took no part, because they were not allowed to. Obviously, the

Rhodesian Government did not want that to happen, because they knew what occurred when the highly respected judge, Lord Pearce, and his Commission went out to see what the reaction of the Africans would be to the provisional agreement that had been reached between Lord Home and Mr. Smith in 1970. The Pearce Commission enabled the Africans to let out an unmistakable yell of protest against the conditions that they had so long endured in silence.
The very people who have ill treated Africans—keeping their leaders in detention, murdering some and perpetuating a system that permits the confiscation of property and food, the destruction of cattle and crops and the forcible removal of people to protected villages—still rule. Detention without trial and summary executions continue even now.
Bishop Muzorewa came to power because both black and white Rhodesians saw him as a man not seeking power for himself, his tribe or his party but as a man of peace and good will who would unite the African nationalists. The Bishop has failed to get the co-operation not only of Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe but Mr. Sithole. As we know, leading members of his own Government have resigned. He has failed to take them along with him.
The black Rhodesians voted for the Bishop, believing that they would have an opportunity of working on their own farms, of buying clothes in the Salisbury shops or drinking in the white man's bars and cafes. The more sophisticated wanted to see a major transference of land and resources from the whites to the blacks. They now look upon the Bishop as a puppet—as a prisoner of the entrenched white bureaucracy and officer corps of white landlords and business men. Of course, this belief is encouraged by the patriotic forces, but so long as the Bishop shares responsibility with Ian Smith and van der Byl, the conviction that he is a stooge will grow, particularly among the young people. The unanimity rule in executive council means that the apparatus of power remains firmly in the hands of Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl.
Over the years, I have made many propositions to help solve the Rhodesian problem. I suggested to Ian Smith that he should seek active co-operation with Joshua Nkomo, who then had the mass


support of the Africans. He spurned the idea.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Foreign Secretary and the first meeting of the interested parties was held on the Victoria Falls bridge under the joint presidency of Mr. Vorster and President Kaunda, I urged him to leave the negotiations entirely to them. They were in the front line and would suffer if there were violence. Later, I opposed Ivor Richard being sent on a mission because I believed that it would bring Britain actively into the struggle for power, and it has done that. I then suggested that a peaceful solution might be found if Mr. Smith were prepared to hand over power to Mr. Garfield Todd, who was a European, trusted by the Africans. If he had asked Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe and the Bishop to join him in forming a Government, a successful outcome might have been achieved.
I believe that we are now in a war situation. Reference has been made to Vietnam. No one wants to see a development of that kind, but I believe that it could arise. Indeed, I go as far as to say that if the Government support the present majority and the Prime Minister in Rhodesia that is almost inevitable.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that a further attempt is made to get all the parties together—the front-line States, Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe and the Bishop. After all, it is their future that is at stake. This time the Prime Minister should also take with her the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The recent conference of the Organisation of African Unity appeared to support that idea. The Government might also consider making a statement before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. The atmosphere that that would create would enable the Prime Minister to take a more easy part in the proceedings than will follow from her statement in Australia, which at present is paramount in the minds of most of the African leaders.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman keeps lumping Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo together, but is it not a fact that both of them are making active preparation for possible civil war? In those circumstances, can the right hon. Gentleman possibly say that whilst they may be called nominally

the Patriotic Front they stand for anything like the same thing?

Mr. Bottomley: It is inevitable that there will be civil war unless we take the sort of action that I have suggested. In my judgment, for some years we have been heading for that situation. The only way to avoid a civil war is to get the United Nations, the British Government and all the leaders concerned together. With the OAU giving its backing, the atmosphere is right for fresh thought to be given to the matter.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The rght hon. Gentleman has twice said that with the backing of the OAU a settlement can be negotiated, but only the other day at Monrovia the OAU unanimously recognised the Patriotic Front as the sole legitimate representative of Zimbabwe. On that basis, how can the right hon. Gentleman hope to achieve a negotiated settlement?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall continue to say that. The OAU went on to say that it was not against a further opportunity to bring together all the parties concerned. That is an indication that the Africans are looking for a way out. We should play on that and not the more extreme statements made for public consumption in the various African countries.
Finally, in the context of Rhodesia I should like to comment on the threats to the BBC's external services through economic cuts. Those services do a wonderful job for Britain and the Commonwealth in teaching the English language. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, everyone at the conference speaks a common tongue, and we want that to continue. From the British point of view, the services promote trade, and the possibilities of development in Africa are enormous and will grow as standards improve. The vernacular services are useful in encouraging interest in Britain and disseminating information about current affairs in Africa with a view to a peaceful solution of their problems. It would be damaging to the peaceful development of Southern Africa if cuts were made in these vital services in the interests of economy.
I believe that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference could be the last chance of avoiding not only civil war


but the probability of a large-scale conflict in Africa. I beg the Prime Minister to do all that she can to avoid that.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me this afternoon. It is the first time that I have spoken, and sitting on these Benches waiting to speak it struck me that the term "maiden speech" was an apt one. Similar to losing one's innocence in other ways, it is one of those things that we do not especially care to do, but we simply have to grit our teeth and plough through so that at least no one can say that we have not tried.
Earlier this afternoon Mr. Speaker said that we were pressed for time. Accordingly, with a blue pencil I went through the speech that I planned and removed large chunks. If what I say seems incoherent and disjointed, I apologise. I should come clean from the start. The House will find me this afternoon and in the years to come a slow-witted man, who often gets the wrong end of the stick and tends to rush in and miss the point. That cannot be put better than by the master of my old college when he wrote a character reference for me. It was intended for the master of the new college to which I was going, but by an error was sent to me. He is in another place and I hope that he will not mind my reading the reference to the House. It says:
Dear Robert, This is to introduce Matthew Parris whom we are sending over as Mellon Fellow. Intellectually highly competent, but not, I would say, brilliant, Parris has been very active in student politics here. Small and sensitive, and dedicated to the financial reform of the amalgamated sports clubs, Parris is altogether just the kind of young man we are delighted to be able to send to America.
I had hoped to wait a little longer before making my maiden speech, as I notice that nothing pleases the House more than unrehearsed eloquence, and I am not someone to whom the unrehearsed comes easily. I have to practise. I planned to spend the Summer Recess in earnest pursuit of the impromptu and accordingly told many hon. Friends that I should wait until I was 30 before making my maiden speech. Imagine my distress when I read in the recently published "The Times Guide to the House

of Commons" that I would be 40 next week. Consequently, in haste and in some confusion, I rise to make my maiden speech.
I regret that it is a required practice to pay credit to one's predecessor only because Mr. James Scott-Hopkins may not realise that it is something that I should have wished to do and his old constituents wished me to do anyway. He was tireless in the way that he served West Derbyshire and Europe, and did both jobs superlatively well. It is not for us to question the laws of nature, but there are confirmed simultaneous sightings of Mr. Scott-Hopkins in Bakewell and Brussels. While canvassing I met many of his constituents whom he had been able to help personally and many whom he had visited to make sure that things were all right. In paying tribute to him I speak not only for myself but for all my constituents, of whatever party, and his many friends and colleagues in the House, who all wish him well in his challenging new job in Europe.
It could only be a sense of duty that leads a man to take Europe before West Derbyshire. I could weigh the whole of Holland against Hartington and Hathersage and the whole of Denmark against Doveridge, and find them wanting. Tideswell and Bradwell may have their rivalries, but they are on a higher plane than the rivalries of Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Given a choice, who would be in Brussels when he could be in Brassington? Who would trifle with Wallonia when he could have Wirksworth?
Although I admire the ingenuity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was able to compliment his football team without straying from order in a debate on the Banabans, I cannot match it. I am lost for an excuse to congratulate Matlock Town on a magnificent season.
I hope that I shall have the understanding of the House if I say a brief word about my constituency before proceeding to the subject of the debate, without any pretence that it is germane.
During the election campaign I had the privilege to meet both my Liberal opponent, Mr. Peter Worboys, and my Labour opponent, Mr. Bill Moore. The three of us have the best interests of the constituency at heart. I hope that the


following short statement represents common ground.
Our part of rural England, an area of spectacular natural beauty, has always enjoyed the patronage or shelter of large and powerful families or authorities. Market forces, crudely defined, have never ruled us entirely, and they do not now.
In a previous age the dukes of Devonshire and other large landowners owned much and controlled even more. Under their patronage land was reserved and housing provided for local people. In hard times employment was created. In hard seasons tenant farmers could expect an understanding landlord.
The system provided an economic, a cultural and even a spiritual anchor for the region. Those days have passed. There is no going back. Successive Governments and successive public authorities have recognised that the shelter provided by that system cannot simply be swept away.
It may be given to this Government to lead our country out of economic decline. I hope so. It may be our good fortune—and I shall be working for it—to regenerate prosperity and galvanise the entrepreneurs. On the other hand, it may not. A little humility is called for. Despite our best efforts, we may find our task to be that of caretakers through years of continuing low growth or even continuing gentle decline.
That would be just as honourable and just as sensitive a task. Perhaps as important as whether the economic turning point comes now or not yet is that we should, when we go, leave behind us a country and a way of life the essential strengths, traditions and beauties of which remain intact. Nowhere are they more deeply rooted than in rural England and in West Derbyshire. Nowhere do they require more careful nurture. Our powers to create are so limited, our power to damage and destroy so great.
I was born in Southern Africa, in Johannesburg. I was brought up and educated in Rhodesia. My family were vigorous opponents of Mr. Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front Party. Our political activities continued after the declaration of independence for four years, until we left in 1969.
I recall two experiences with particular intensity. Each of them pull in opposite directions. I shall recount them to the House. When I was about 13 I went with an African schoolboy friend of about the same age into a café in Salisbury. It was called "The Flowerpot". We wanted a cup of tea. The African boy had helped me to mend my bicycle.
I shall never forget the expression of hopelessness and helpless embarrassment on the face of the African waitress who was sent to tell us that Africans were not allowed into that establishment. That was the order of things which Mr. Smith was pledged to maintain and which he was swept to power to maintain.
In those days Mr. Smith was in the habit of gaoling Africans who organised political opposition to him. It is easy to remark that that order of things has changed. It certainly has. If I am asked why it has changed, I am in intellectual difficulty to deny that it is because of the cruel and violent pressures which I should be the first to deplore. The impact that those earlier days had on the political mentality of African politicians, who were then young men, cannot be underestimated. The House should understand that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell), in a speech which I recommend to new hon. Members, said that to have spent some of one's youth in another man's gaol can form political attitudes in a rather surprising way.
The second episode which I recall happened a little earlier. It arose out of one of the most disgraceful episodes in recent colonial history—Belgium's ditching of the Congo at a few weeks' notice.
Pouring into Salisbury from the north came thousands of white families from the ex-Belgian Congo. They had lost everything. They feared, rightly, for their lives and for their children's safety under the new African Government, which was already faltering. They had been abandoned by their own Government. Their arrival made a deep impact upon white people in Rhodesia. We organised help for them while they looked for the means to return to Belgium.
People who jeer at the anxieties of the white Rhodesians or berate them for hardening their hearts in the way that


they did in the 1960s should ask themselves whether this is the right way to deal with fear—the right way to deal with anxiety.
I invite hon. Members' attention to two elements of the problem—the element of distrust and the element of fear. I do not ignore the third element—the desire for power—but I think that hon. Members understand that better.
Bitter distrust on the part of the African politicians of Mr. Smith and all his works—of which the new internal settlement is counted, rightly or wrongly, to be one—will not be easy to dispel. They have the same disinclination to believe that the Government is really in new hands as many of my hon. Friends would have to any assurance, for instance, that President Machel of Mozambique is now truly emancipated from Soviet control. Unless a clear sign proving that the break has been made can be found, suspicion will endure.
Surely we can understand these suspicions. There are forces at work in Africa and in the world who simply want to make trouble and will use any excuse. Equally, there are African politicians to whom these suspicions are real and not excuses. Between those two groups runs a hairline crack across the face of seemingly united international hostility to any internal settlement.
It is vital that we should first find that crack and place the chisel there and nowhere else. Secondly, it is vital that when we find the crack we deliver a sharp and decisive blow. Many of my hon. Friends understand the use of the chisel and many others understand the use of the hammer. We have to understand the use of both. Both skills are well known on the Government Front Bench.
I cannot help thinking that if one wanted to behave towards the white Rhodesians in a manner calculated to deepen their anxieties, inflame their fears, induce among them a state of near paranoia and lead them collectively to act directly against their own self-interest as a community, it would be hard to find a better way than by the dismissive and vindictive attitudes that we have displayed towards them in the last 13 years.
That is changing. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal on the simple but crucial sea change in the way that we are talking about and talking to the white Rhodesians. I thank the Prime Minister in particular for the lead that she has given.
Will the House accept my good faith as one who has consistently opposed Mr. Smith when I say that the white Rhodesians need to be told that we care what happens to them? They need to be told that there is a place for them in Rhodesia and that we are relying on them to help in the transition. They are lonely and frightened people.
I urge Opposition Members, who can be so understanding about such matters closer to home, to recognise that defiance and intransigence are the symptoms of anxiety and insecurity.
I ask the white Rhodesians to keep an open mind about Mr. Joshua Nkomo. They should remember what Jomo Kenyatta did, and how we once hated him. They should remember what we once thought of Dr. Hastings Banda. They should remember what a rough time Britain once gave to Seretse Khama when he was here.
Bishop Muzorewa should not stand with Ian Smith, and may not be able to stand alone. Joshua Nkomo is said to be an unscrupulous man, who is interested in power. If that is so, he is just the man that we want on our side.
I cannot do better than to refer to another maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). He called for a forum in which business, industries, the CBI and the trade unions could meet to discuss things. On the following afternoon the Prime Minister announced her intentions to set up such a forum.
My knowledge of Greek mythology is slight, but someone called Orpheus used to play his lute just before dawn. Opinion was divided amongst local people as to whether he knew that the sun was coming up and accordingly played his lute, or whether his playing the lute caused the sun to come up. I sometimes think that politics may be rather like that. In the years to come I shall have my lute ready, and when I think that I see signs of an


imminent sunrise I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will occasionally ask me to play.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: We have listened to a remarkable maiden speech. It is an ancient custom of the House for an hon. Member who follows a maiden speech to say something nice about the younger hon. Member who has recently entered the House. Sometimes that is a chore, and hypocrisy is often evident in the tone of the speaker. Not so today. We have listened to a speech which was not only lucid and modest but one of the best-informed on African affairs that I have heard over the years.
The hon. Gentleman is a genuine white African. I have been in a similar situation to him on the matter of apartheid. Many years ago I took a black leader on the Copper Belt in Kitwe to the Edinburgh hotel. His name was Kenneth Kaunda. Only one of us was allowed into that miners' hotel, and it was not the gentleman with me. I know exactly how the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) felt on the occasion to which he referred and I wish him—I am sure that we all do—many happy years in his Derbyshire dales. He will make many more speeches and we shall enjoy them—and I am delighted to be able to say that without an ounce of hypocrisy.
I wish to make a short speech on two aspects of this Gordian knot; first, on the position inside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and, secondly, on the geopolitical position following the conference that took place at Monrovia, in Liberia.
It is difficult for any one of us to be definite today. I am scared of people who are what they term "honestly dogmatic" about the position. They know it all. I have not been to Rhodesia for some while, but I base my sentiments and impressions on listening to those who have come out of Central Africa. In a sense we are lucky to have so many black and white leaders, in all walks of life, who return to London. We know these men and women, we know that they have integrity, we value their views and we listen to them.
My impression of the society inside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is that both the Bishop and his opponents are losing the

good will—how much we cannot measure—of the masses of the people. The ZANU guerrillas of Mugabe batten upon the people, and I am told that they are even exacting taxes, never mind beer, food and the like. They will soon dissipate any attraction that they have if they behave in that fashion.
Conversely, I understand that the Bishop is not seen to be giving tangible benefits to his people. The long-expected and much-desired jobs are not coming forward. Even his enthusiastic supporters of some weeks ago are now losing the euphoria that they had at the elections, when they—particularly the women—danced just as others have been dancing for the Queen in another part of Africa.
Time is not on the side of the Bishop. The time factor is fearfully important, and time is slipping away from him in the task that he has set himself. Do not mistake me; I wish him success and I wish for a peaceful settlement, but only if others, such as Mugabe and Nkomo, are involved.
Some people think that that is impossible, but it is my analysis at this moment. I should like the Minister, when he replies, to tell me what he thinks about this up-and-down situation, and to give me the number of guerrillas. Is it 10,000, 12,000 or 15,000? I am given to understand that there are more arriving and that the position is getting worse. The official security forces are killing off many guerrillas; make no mistake about that. But that does not endear them to the black masses. Unless the Bishop can fairly soon dispel the impression that he is being manipulated by Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl, and others of the 28 or more in the political limelight, he will not turn the tide of the war. That is my feeling.
All the portents are that he is not delivering the goods and that the morale of black and white is low. Thousands of whites are leaving. Again, can the Minister give some figures to show the tendency there? I do not want the whites to leave. They are the linchpin, the key factors in the economy, and I should like to have some assessment.
I say sadly, but with sincerity, that I can see no future for the Muzorewa Government unless those former private


armies of the Bishop and the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole are successfully integrated within the Government forces. I am told by the Government that the six principles that were originally laid down have been fulfilled. I accept that but I wish that they had been fulfilled six or eight years ago, when there was a chance of geting home with the bacon. I think that it is now too late.
The constitution, as set up at this moment, does not accord the Muzorewa Government sufficient power—they want far more clout, far more power. Changes are needed to give the Bishop—or any other black leader if someone comes into his place—more power to legislate for the political, social and economic changes that the blacks desire.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) in his fine speech. The exit of Mr. Smith from the stage is absolutely imperative. Having seen what has gone before him—Welensky and Garfield Todd in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and Bundell and Vasey in Kenya—I do not understand why a man of Mr. Smith's intelligence cannot see where the tide of history is flowing. I do not suggest that he should sacrifice himself, but why does he not, with political modesty, quietly get out of the way and allow a lot more lubrication in the political machine for the blacks to use?
How can the forces of Nkomo and Mugabe be persuaded to end the war by political means? The two are inextricably mixed. It is absurd for anyone to expect that those forces can be defeated this week, this year, next year or for decades ahead. They are there and cannot be shifted. That has been the history of independence movements all over the black continent. What can be done about that? I should like to see more ZANU and ZAPU forces joining the Government side, but at the moment I cannot see that happening. Time alone will tell.
The possibility has been mooted of inviting the Patriotic Front—Nkomo and Mugabe—to take part in discussions and elections on the changed constitution, even without Smith. I have thought hard about this proposition, but I do not believe that it is possible. There is no black or white leader in the Commonwealth—I include Australians, Canadians

and New Zealanders—except perhaps Hastings Banda of Malawi, who is on the side of the British Government when we speak of sanctions and what will be done in the near future to settle the matter.
I should like to make a few remarks about the OAU conference and the dominating influence of Nigeria. Those speeches that I have read which were made at the conference are more than adamant on economic sanctions and Zimbabwe. Ministers know that that is the case. Nigeria is setting the pace by doing more than hint that it could use sanctions against us in the sad event of being forced into that action, let alone Britain thinking again about enforcing sanctions over Zimbabwe. We should be deserted by all African States, from Gambia to Zanzibar and from Sudan to Swaziland, if we were to lift sanctions and come out openly in support of the Government in Salisbury.
I would put more weight, any day of the week, on the advice of Julius Nyerere than anyone else in Africa. Why are Her Majesty's Government not giving more help to Julius in the sad condition of his country? It is a poverty-stricken nation, which deserves the thanks of all mankind for shifting a monster like Amin. Only one other man in Africa can compare with Amin. I refer to Mengistu, in Addis Ababa. Nyerere, with his impoverished economy, has come out against all the so-called philosophy of the OAU, which proclaims that one must not disturb the divisions left by the white imperialists of the past. Nyerere has taken the bit in his mouth, or out of his mouth, whichever way one views the matter, and has got on with the job. This is the first step to movement in Africa that is so badly needed. Nyerere deserves help.

Mr. John Butcher: Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) rose—

Mr. Johnson: I am finishing my speech. There are many hon. Members waiting to speak.
As the Lord Privy Seal knows, I have asked questions about this matter. I hope that we shall hear some answers. It would be sheer folly for the British Government to pursue any other course than to work with our Commonwealth colleagues. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we should work with our Commonwealth colleagues, old and new, to seek positive solutions and harmony


with the front-line States, Kenneth Kaunda, Seretse Khama and the others.
What is the alternative? It has been said twice already—I shall say it a third time—that the door is left wide open, as in the Horn of Africa and Angola, for the Cubans and East Europeans to move in. If that happens, there will be no end to the conflict. I contemplate with horror such a possibility. For God's sake, let us avoid that situation. There is sufficient venom, vice and danger in the Horn of Africa. Let it not occur south of the Zambesi.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I warmly welcome the tone and content of the Prime Minister's speech. We must also be grateful for the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on the importance of the Commonwealth and the need not to aggravate difficulties in advance of the meeting in Lusaka. I dissent, however, from many of the assumptions and conclusions of the Leader of the Opposition.
In previous debates on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia I have always taken the view that it would be wrong to lift sanctions before the six principles could be regarded as satisfied and the way opened to a return to legality and international recognition. I believe, however, that the situation has been radically changed by the recent elections. These have been deemed by the great majority of observers, including the team led by Lord Boyd, to be fair and free. In that context, the views expressed by Lord Home in another place are correct and should be heeded. Lord Home has also hitherto taken the position that to lift sanctions unilaterally would be an unjustifiable breach of the mandatory United Nations resolution, albeit that it was undoubtedly wrong to have referred the matter to the United Nations in the first place.
If the House agrees with Lord Home—share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that it must—that the six principles have now been satisfied, which was also the position of the Labour Foreign Secretary in the previous Government, we are bound to honour the moral and specific commitments entered into by successive Governments. That is an

aspect of the matter that was entirely neglected by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I cannot shake off the feeling that if the present settlement and constitution had been negotiated by our own Foregin Office, it would have been delighted with it.
It has to be accepted in the House that there has been a genuine internal settlement, not one imposed from outside, however much we might wish that we could have imposed one. In those circumstances, it seems that we can do no more than suggest improvements at the margins of a kind that would smooth the path to general international recognition. We may make suggestions. We should make suggestions. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will make suggestions at Lusaka, and that she will welcome such suggestions as may come from Commonwealth leaders. We should certainly not be seeking to impose new conditions or to add to the six principles.
To lift completely what the Bishop himself has called the curse of UDI requires the state of rebellion to be formally ended. I wish that the Bishop would think along those lines and perhaps agree that it would be appropriate for a Governor-General to be appointed, not someone like Field-Marshal Lord Carver but a person acceptable to the Bishop himself who could be appointed for the briefest of periods necessary to take through the British Parliament an independence Bill based on the internal settlement and constitution.
Such a course would result in a return to legality which, as the Prime Minister said today, would, in effect, remove the whole issue from the ambit of the United Nations and so logically and inevitably bring sanctions to an end. If that is not acceptable, or not possible, we must act promptly and, if necessary, unilaterally to fulfil our clear obligations, stated again and again by successive Governments in this House. I agree that time is slipping away. The effect is to undermine the hopes of all who took part in the successful elections. A heavy responsibility will rest on this House if we should be the authors of the destruction of the moderate black African Government who have been established.
I trust that the Government will acknowledge the truth so cogently expressed


by Lord Home that any anxieties which might follow the lifting of sanctions would be almost incidental compared with the catastrophe of the chaos and the war which would follow if the Soviet Union and the Cubans had their way on the continent of Africa.
If we act promptly, I very much doubt whether the ultimate African response will be as negative as many people seem to fear. The point was made with the reference to the recent activities of Mr. Nyerere in dealing with Amin. In the past, the African nations have shown a very good understanding of the realities of power and the nature of the world in which we live. I believe that there is very little genuine support for the terrorist guerrilla leaders who believe in "one man, one vote, one party, one election". The only people who believe in them are the Soviet Union, the Cubans and the African Communists.
If a clear British policy is announced, without being presented in a provocative way, it is likely that any storm would blow over, particularly as a stable, moderate, black African Government is in the interests of the neighbouring States. I hope that that will be the case and that the conference in Lusaka will be successful, but whatever happens the British Government should not be deterred from doing their duty by the threats of economic or political retaliation from any quarter.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. David Ennals: There was very much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said with which I profoundly disagreed. However, I warmly welcomed what he said about the speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Both of their speeches were of great importance. If it does not embarrass the Prime Minister, I should like to congratulate her on the openness of her approach today and in the period leading up to Lusaka. I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on having taken so long today to listen to speeches from both sides of the House when she has many other preoccupations.
I had expected to say something different from what I am now saying to the right hon. Lady, because I have been

deeply concerned by the statement—it seems that it was an off-the-cuff statement—which was made in Canberra. It seemed to me that at that time—I think that it would have been so—if that policy had been pursued, and we were indicating in advance that sanctions would not be carried in November, our country would have had two distinct policies. One would have been that set out by Lord Carrington in another place on 10 July, and a separate policy.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady. I know that she has come in for some criticism from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and some of his colleagues. However, she must have recognised that any policy that announces in advance that sanctions will not be continued in November has two immediate consequences. First, it is virtually the same as a recognition now of the Muzorewa regime, which I know some of the Prime Minister's hon. Friend's wish to see. Secondly, however, it would remove one of the main levers of power and influence that we have in the changes. Together with others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe in the constitution that has now been carried through.
I am sure, also, that the right hon. Lady will have recognised that a "go-it-alone" policy, which is what would have been the case if we had stood by our policy of no sanctions from November, come what may, would have brought great political difficulties for Britain. It would have created for us a crisis in our relationship with the United States. It would have been very damaging to our relationship with our European colleagues. I give credit to the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for having brought along the countries of the EEC in the policy that Britain has pursued in Europe. It would have caused for the right hon. Lady, and all who care about Zimbabwe, grave embarrassment in the Commonwealth as well as in other countries of Africa.
I believe that it would have caused grave economic damage. Following the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, I believe that it is not a question of whether we agree with threats that may or may not have been


made by the Nigerian Government and the difficulties which British firms are or are not facing in securing important contracts in Nigeria. However, what hardly anyone in the House would doubt is that if we were to pursue a policy that was not the result of consultations with our colleagues we would find that the economic prospects for us would be damaged not merely in Africa but in many other parts of the world—and our economy can ill afford that. Very often it would be our friends, in a sense—the Germans, the Japanese and the United States—who would be quickly in to seize the economic opportunities that would be presented. There would be grave economic consequences.
Lifting sanctions has, in a sense, more symbolism attached to it than it has economic content. What Africa wants, and what Zimbabwe wants, more than the lifting of sanctions is the ending of the war, positive measures to end injustice and discrimination, and the achievement of international recognition. However, there is no doubt that sanctions have a crucial symbolic value and are an absolutely essential element in the pressure that needs to be brought upon the Muzorewa regime.
There are many parts of the present constitution about which I believe the Bishop himself has doubts. Certainly many would find objectionable the guarantees that all key posts in the army, the police, the public services and the judiciary should be held for at least five years by white Rhodesians. The main task that the Government have in the negotiations that have been undertaken by Lord Harlech and by officials is to seek to secure the fulfilment of the fifth principle, because, whatever is said by the Lord Privy Seal, this Parliament has not yet satisfied itself that the majority of all Rhodesians are substantially in favour of this constitution. That was not a question put to them in the elections that took place. The black population have not been consulted about the new constitution, and eventually this Parliament must be consulted as well.
I know that the Prime Minister has already come in for some criticism from her own Right-wing Members, who, after all, supported Mr. Smith through thick and thin during long years of this illegal regime. Whether they were on the Oppo-

sition Benches or on the Government Benches, they were prepared to advocate policies that would have given greater recognition to Mr. Smith at the time when he was saying clearly that he did not believe that majority rule would come in his lifetime and that he did not want to see majority rule. Therefore, they are now giving to the right hon. Lady advice which at that time was unacceptable to successive Governments.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will stand firm. It was encouraging that she took the open position that she did today. It has greatly improved the reception that she will have in Lusaka.
I for one stand by the objectives set out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I believe that to carry the Commonwealth along with the Prime Minister will be a task that all of us in Britain, of whatever party, would warmly support. I say to those right hon. and hon. Members who are the Prime Minister's critics on the Right of her party—they who have been so friendly with Mr. Smith over the years—that the best contribution that they could make now would be to advise Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl that while there must be Europeans in a multi-racial Government and a multiracial Parliament, the names and the reputations of both these men are doing such damage to the credibility of Bishop Muzorewa's reputation and his Government as to make it very difficult for him to fulfil his task.
I believe, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), that Bishop Abel Muzorewa, whom I have met on many occasions, is a man of integrity and honesty, who wants to carry his country forward but who finds himself in difficulties beyond his control. The trouble is that he is controlled by others.
The greatest contribution that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion could make would be to persuade Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl that the time had come for them to step aside. All of us who care for peace, independence and genuine majority rule in Zimbabwe would wish success to the Prime Minister in her mission and to the Commonwealth conference in the contribution that it may be able to make.

6.40 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne: I rise with considerable trepidation for the first time in the House to make my maiden speech. That is partly because of the awe which the traditions and history of this place so rightly inspire, but it is also more than a little because over the past two or three months I have had the privilege of listening to many distinguished maiden speeches which have put those who follow them on their mettle. None has done so more than the extremely distinguished contribution that we had the privilege and pleasure of hearing this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). With great humility I congratulate him on his fine effort.
I am leaving this afternoon an increasingly exclusive club. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have already made their maiden speeches and those who remain are few. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), I rise sero sed serio late, but very much in earnest.
My first task this afternoon is to thank all those senior Members of Parliament who have made me, as a new Member, feel so welcome. They have made this experience far from the daunting experience that I had feared. Their tact and kindness is a trait which I distinctly recognise from my acquaintance and friendship, which has grown over the past three years, with my predecessor Evelyn King, the former Member for Dorset, South. Evelyn King possessed in full measure that charm and tact which I now recognise are among the most distinguishing and agreeable features of the House of Commons. It therefore gives me the greatest pleasure to pay my tribute to him this afternoon, not only for his kindness to me but for the extraordinary assiduity which he showed in his devotion to the interests and the affairs of his constituents.
Evelyn King followed with great distinction a long line of Members for Dorset, South, in whom that constituency has been most fortunate. I must mention in that number the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who, in what those of us on the Conservative Benches might consider to be a moment of aberration, was elected some years ago to

serve, in the Labour interest, my constituency. He was, and still is, in spite of that, remembered with respect and affection.
Dorset, South deserves well of its Members of Parliament, for it is truly an extraordinary constituency. Dorset as a whole is unquestionably an ancient place. It is a place of legends which perhaps leave something in the air of witchcraft. It is a place of ancient stories and ancient houses. It is a place of secrets and mystery. It is a place which shows to the visiting public a face which is pleasanter by far than even the dales of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West.
My constituency possesses in full measure the attributes of which the country as a whole can boast, from the town of Swanage and the Purbecks through to the Royal manor of Portland. Equally, superimposed on the agricultural workers who constitute a relatively small part of the population of my constituency, the fishermen and those engaged in the traditional holiday trades of the South Coast is the fact that the bulk of the population are engaged in employment of great moment to the future of this country, whether we are talking about Benches they were prepared to advocate Bovington and Lulworth and the great Admiralty Under-water Weapons Research Establishment at Portland, or whether we are talking of the light industry of Weymouth and Wareham. Above all, we can boast in these days of energy shortage a fine atomic energy establishment at Winfrith and, perhaps just as important, our own onshore oilfields along the southern and western littoral of Poole harbour.
There were certain adventurous spirits who suggested to me during the last election campaign that if the Labour Party won the election South Dorset was self-sufficient enough to be able to declare UDI. I am mindful of the need not to be controversial in my maiden speech, and therefore it is with great relief that I am able to report to the House that I did my utmost to discourage such seditious talk, however attractive it might have seemed at the time.
That mention of UDI brings me at last to the subject of the debate, for there can be no doubt that Rhodesia is the central issue in any discussion on


Southern Africa. Before I go any further, I should declare a small financial interest in that country, which Labour Members will readily appreciate is dwindling rapidly.
As I say, I am conscious of the need to avoid controversy on this occasion, and I do not wish to abuse the courtesy with which hon. Members on both sides of the House are listening to me by embarking on any rehearsal of controversial views and opinion. The strategic importance of Southern Africa and the legal obstacles in the way of the settlement that we all desire have been amply covered by right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House. Indeed, they have covered them far more ably than I should have been able to do.
However, I crave the House's indulgence to make a general point. We all know that Rhodesia is a land of tragedies. Perhaps I, more than most hon. Members, have cause to know that. It is a land where, daily, hundreds of people are murdered, tortured and maimed. Most of those people are Africans. Hundreds of people who are not murdered, tortured or maimed daily go in risk of all three. No inhabitant of the United Kingdom can understand the horror and the danger of living in that country unless he lives in the troubled province of Ulster.
The bitter irony is that the tragedy is unfurling in a country which has almost unlimited potential. For example, the staple foods of maize, wheat and beef that are produced in Rhodesia can feed its present young and growing population easily, even in the present troubles. In times of stability, that capacity could be increased several times over. When the enormous reserves of land that stretch from the north down to the low veldt in the south-east are considered, that capacity is almost limitless.
One should take account not only of the staple crops but of the country's capacity to produce tea, coffee, milk—all the ingredients that go towards the staple English diet. It is a land with huge deposits of coal, chrome and other minerals. It is a land that has managed to develop a remarkable industrial manufacturing capacity and a highly developed financial system that is more sophisticated than any south of an Italian bourse.
When we examine the tragedy and the bloodshed of Rhodesia, it is extraordinarily easy to forget that it is not just a land of blood and murder. It is a land of extraordinary opportunity, and not just for the inhabitants of Rhodesia. In view of its unique attributes, particularly after the last election there, it could become the economic motor of that part of sub-Saharan. Africa. If we consider what is happening in Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Zaire and Angola, we see the inhabitants of those countries ridden by war, famine and pestilence in varying degrees. When the qualities and attributes of Rhodesia are realised, it is possible that it could provide the stability, skill and technology for the progress—even the political stability—that is needed in that part of the world.
I am grateful for the patience and consideration that the House has shown me this afternoon. The splendid vision of Rhodesia is on the verge of disappearance and it is becoming one of the might-have-beens of history. In all humility, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say this afternoon that she recognised that time was running short. Indeed, it is. If the vision is not to disappear altogether, it is vital that we achieve a settlement in the near future. Otherwise, what remains will be chaos and destruction.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) with great interest. I was particularly interested to hear him lamenting the fact that he was leaving a club which was becoming more exclusive as each day passed. He should rejoice in the fact that he has joined a new club—the club of the no-longer maiden speakers. He has now become one of those who will be listened to. I believe that he will become one of those speakers for whom, when his name is seen on the annunciators that are scattered throughout the building, serious efforts will be made to come into the Chamber to listen to him—if hon. Members are not already there.
I pay tribute both to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). They have brought an assurance which would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. At that time


for a maiden speaker to make his first contribution in a major foreign affairs debate would have been considered to be almost heresy, although I was not in this place 20 years ago. The fact that they chose to make their contributions at this time and triumphed over that fact speaks more eloquently than I am able to.
We are dealing with a problem of great concern. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who appears to have left the Chamber temporarily, sees the problem as being not so much that of the people of Southern Africa as one that springs from the thrust of Soviet imperialism. We hear that comment every time Rhodesia, Namibia, and South Africa are discussed. The constant theme is that the real problems in that part of the world are caused by the presence of Cubans, East Germans or Russians. It occurs to me that if there is a man in the Kremlin whose job it is to negate Western influence and to make certain that Soviet influence is expanding, he must be out of his tiny mind with boredom. He has absolutely nothing to do. All he needs to do is to make a modest investment in Hansard, send out copies of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, and his work is done for him.
The contempt with which the right hon. Gentleman expresses his views of Mr. Nkomo and many of the African leaders convinces many of those in that part of the world that the West is determined, if nothing else, to make certain that they will not have their proper place in the governing of those countries. The tragic result of that attitude is that the need to end the present conflict in Southern Rhodesia becomes greater and more difficult to achieve. The conflict is not easing; it is increasing—perhaps imperceptibly to some—and increasing every day. Some Labour Members were discussing the problem of Southern Africa long before they came here. We feel that ever since the ill-fated attempt to set up the Central African Federation there has been an inexorable drift towards the present conflict.
It does not please me one little bit to say that we warned 20 years ago that this would happen but that people would not listen and accused us of scaremon-

gering. We were told that we were misreading the situation. The situation has been misread by those who believe themselves to be experts and who thought that they had all the answers.
It is worth while recalling recent events in order to understand the position fully. The purpose of UDI was to frustrate the genuine African democratic majority in Southern Africa. The perpetrators of UDI were unable to maintain it in its pristine form largely because of the twin efforts of sanctions and guerrilla warfare. The purpose of the internal settlement was precisely the same.
Nothing of substance has changed in Southern Rhodesia as a result of the internal settlement. The army is still under the control of the white officers who controlled it before. The Bishop finds himself having to try to explain the raids across the border into Mozambique, Zambia and Botswana, not even knowing that they have taken place. Yet he is the Prime Minister, who is primarily in charge of the army. The Civil Service is still under the charge of the same people who ran it before, and the judiciary is still in the same hands. The illegal hangings continue.
Nothing of substance has changed, because the internal settlement was designed solely to enshrine white domination in Rhodesia. It was not a question of minority rights, or of making certain that people's rights were not removed. The purpose was to make quite certain that there would be no genuine majority rule.
One of the tragedies of the whole affair has been that people have been unable to recognise that events in other parts of Southern Africa were having a considerable influence on the opinion of the nationalist leaders. I do not believe that many people realise, even today, the significance of what happened in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. Those events were a watershed in the history of Southern Africa.
The leaders of African opinion in the world have over a century tried to see, in Southern Africa and in other areas under colonial domination, a move towards peace and an end of colonialism. We saw it happening gradually further up in Africa. But in the Portuguese colonies it became clear, just as it has


become clear in Southern Rhodesia, that there would be no surrender of power, and the liberation movement took up arms against Portugal. They won. It was the first time in Africa—it will not be the last—that people have won their freedom as a direct result of a military struggle against a metropolitan Power. They, incidentally, brought the metropolitan Power itself down in the process. The Portuguese revolution was a byproduct of the liberation of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau, just as the liberation of those colonies was a by-product of the change in Portugal itself.
Those developments were an amalgam of two forces. The African leaders in those colonies had for years spent their time in detention or had been expelled from their countries. They had asked, pleaded and begged to be given a genuine movement towards majority rule, towards governing their own countries, and towards human dignity. They were refused, they took up arms, and they won. It was precisely that which changed the character of Southern Africa and which made the Patriotic Front take up arms against the Smith regime.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Is the hon. Member saying that in that case he would prefer that there should be a settlement by force of arms in Rhodesia rather than that there should be a settlement by the ballot box, which has taken place and which the hon. Member seems to be ignoring completely?

Mr. Hughes: There are times when one wonders whether Conservative Members listen to what one is saying. I have always argued that the people in Southern Africa should have the freedom to determine their future through the ballot box. That has been denied them for generation after generation. It is our failure here and in Southern Africa to see that such a future was guaranteed by the ballot box that has caused the liberation movements to turn to the bullet.
I hope that the Prime Minister has some success in Lusaka, and that she will find a way of persuading the Commonwealth Heads of State to give her arguments a try to see whether she can get a negotiated settlement. I hope to be in Lusaka at the same time to argue the

case for not recognising the present regime.
If there is to be a settlement by means of the ballot box, we have somehow to demonstrate that we mean it when we say that we want to see a transfer of power. We have failed since UDI—I disregard what happened before that—to do what we said we would do. It is not for me to use this debate to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and in what I say I mean no criticism of him. He said that UDI would be finished in weeks rather than months. Subsequently, we found that the Government were encouraging and collaborating with the international oil companies to break sanctions and see that Rhodesia got its oil.
I sometimes wonder whether some Conservatives live in a dream world. They speak about our taking sides and about the liberation movements seeking help from other sources. How do they think the Rhodesian war machine is kept going? The answer is that it gets its bullets and its fuel to run its war machine from the West. We connive at it because we are unable and unwilling fully to apply sanctions, because we are afraid that we will be involved in taking on South Africa.
We demonstrate repeatedly that our commitment to a free and genuine democratic Zimbabwe is very thin. We continually let down the people who want to see a peaceful change take place. We continually bolster the Smith regime and, now, the Smith-Muzorewa regime with oil and weapons. We are selective in our reporting of it.
I could hardly believe my ears when I heard Conservative Members expressing concern for the safety of the Queen during her visit to Zambia. The threat to her safety, if there was a threat, was not from Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe but from the forces of the Bishop which were bombing Lusaka. The danger was an invasion from outside. Continually Conservatives have sought to deny Zambia the weapons that it needs to defend itself. By their convoluted logic they believe that it is dangerous for the Queen to go to Zambia because of the presence of the guerrillas.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Surely, it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman, even with his prejudices, that


the only heat-seeking missiles which have brought down aircraft have been fired not by the Rhodesian forces but by Mr. Nkomo's guerrillas.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the guerrillas would attack the Queen's aircraft? We all know that that is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends continually condemn the killing of innocent people involved in this conflict. I regret that very much, and condemn it, too, although I wish that there was as much condemnation of others. I have not heard a word today that condemns Bishop Muzorewa for the killing of 183 of Sithole's auxiliaries.
Not long ago, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion told us, when he was in Opposition, that Mr. Sithole was a marvellous statesman. What about that? What about the arrest of 450 of Sithole's people today by the Muzorewa-Smith Government? I do not know whether Bishop Muzorewa ordered that. The silence with which the taking of African lives by the Smith forces is greeted is deafening. There is, therefore, a great suspicion of our intentions.
The visit of Mr. Jimmy Young to Salisbury to do a phone-in will not do much for the reputation of the BBC. I am not one who professes to be a Royalist, but hon. Members on the Government Benches profess to be great royalists and lay great store by the status of the monarchy. Rhodesia is a country in rebellion against the monarchy, yet the BBC is allowed to go and do phone-ins, and it is held up as some sort of paragon of virtue.
The Government must decide whether it will do other than simply creep into recognition of Rhodesia, almost by accident, after Lusaka. I put a question to the Lord Privy Seal asking whether the Government intend to have a further inquiry into the revelations which came out of the Bingham report on oil sanctions. He replied that that was still under consideration. I hope that it is under consideration, and serious consideration, too, because we need to know exactly what part was played, by whichever Government, in the breaking of sanctions.
We say that the British Government are an honourable Government and that they mean what they say. We say to people in Africa, who are fighting in a war for their freedom, "You must trust us. You must trust us to play the game by the rules and rely upon our integrity." Yet our integrity has been seriously compromised. We then wonder why they turn to other people—whether it be Cuba, East Germany, or the Soviet Union—and ask them for help. Who else are they to turn to if we are unwilling to help them?
I hope that the Government realise exactly how important the settling of the Southern Rhodesia problem is to South Africa. We have spoken so often of last chances when we have discussed South Africa that one hesitates to use the phrase, but if we do not get a peaceful settlement, if we do not bring in the Patriotic Front and achieve a settlement that is universally acceptable, it will be only a matter of time before the guerrillas eventually march into Salisbury. There is no doubt about that.
There are still 1,000 whites a month leaving Rhodesia. They do not have much faith in the great white tribal chief. Things are therefore not going so well in Southern Rhodesia. The Bishop no longer has a parliamentary majority. His former colleague, Mr. Sithole, is trying to go to court to have the elections declared invalid because he does not think that the election was free and fair. That is not the issue, however; the issue is that the constitution was never put to the blacks in the first place.
If we are to have a settlement based on a peaceful solution, we must have integrity. If we fail to get that, the guerrillas will fight on and they will win. People must appreciate that in a war what was acceptable 10 or 20 years ago is no longer acceptable.
I hope that the Government will undertake a serious investigation into how much of the South African Department of Information's funds came into this country to subvert the British press and to set up fancy research institutions. Hon Members on the Government Benches laugh at that because in their eyes the only crime that the South African Department of Information has committed is the breaking of the eleventh commandment, "Thou shalt


not be found out". There has been not a word of condemnation about the millions of pounds used to subvert the democratic process. That is acceptable behaviour if one favours the South African regime.
We should have an investigation into how much money has come into Britain. A great deal has. Many people are said to have been bought by Rhoodie's people in order to subvert our ideas and make sure that our democracy does not hold sway. They want to see Britain firmly on the side of South Africa.
We have had many previous attempts. This must be our final attempt at a peaceful solution. If we fail now, we shall face a Vietnam situation because everyone will see the victory of the Patriotic Front in Southern Rhodesia—in Zimbabwe—as the only possible way for victory and freedom in South Africa itself and in Namibia.
I choose the democratic process first, but if we are forced into war I shall defend the Patriotic Front and the liberation movement in their fight for freedom. I am sure that many in the Conservative Party supported the French partisans, and those in Yugoslavia and Greece who fought the Nazis. I shall support them if that is the only course they have to face. I hope that we shall not have to face that.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I join in the congratulations offered on two very distinguished and elegant maiden speeches. If I do not say more, I hope that those hon. Members will forgive me, as I wish to be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) painted a picture of what Zimbabwe-Rhodesia might become—in economic terms—once peace is restored. He implied that to reach that situation required a significant number of white Rhodesians to remain in Rhodesia. We have found that to be the case in other African countries too, where white help comes from expatriate labour and experts. I urge upon the Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Secretary of State that they consider carefully the economic advantages and disadvantages—in the longer term particularly—of the way in which the prob-

lems of Southern Africa are attacked and eventually settled.
Time is not on our side. White Rhodesians are leaving Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. They are leaving because they are worried not about the present but about the future and the degree of support that they will get from Britain and from the House of Commons. Without that support they can only believe that in due course all the white population will be driven out, having seen, as my hon. Friend described, the white population driven out of other African countries. So I hope that we will give them that support and that, despite the obvious dangers, we will lift sanctions, if necessary unilaterally, before very long.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade those at Lusaka, especially the Nigerians, that that is the right thing to do from the point of view of Africa as a whole and for the future development of that great continent.
I know that the Nigerians take a rather emotional view of the present situation. Incidentally, they are annoyed at the apparent lack of interest in Britain in their own elections. We make a great deal of the elections in Rhodesia but the British press has been singularly silent about the election in progress now in Nigeria, as part of the change to democratic civilian rule.
There is a risk of economic damage from Nigerian reaction if at the start we alone recognise Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and lift sanctions. In terms of trade, Nigeria is the important country. There is not much that the rest of black Africa can do to damage our trading position. We export about £1,000 million worth of goods to Nigeria, and we import only about £286 million worth. I must declare an interest. I am the chairman of a publishing company that sells many educational books to Nigeria. If the Nigerians became angry enough they could delay remittances and damage the cash flow of British firms. They could cut back on the number of expatriates working there. They could even start the partial nationalisation of British firms.
However, I think that that is an exaggerated danger. One of the tasks laid upon my right hon. Friend is to use her persuasive powers to prevent the Nigerians from cutting off their economic


nose to spite their political face, for they, as well as other African countries, will suffer without a prosperous Zimbabwe.
In the longer term, what is as important to Britain are the raw materials and the trading potentialities of both Rhodesia and South Africa. It is estimated that we have about £500 million to £700 million worth of investments in Nigeria and between £5,000 million and £7,000 million of private investment in South Africa. That is the comparison in terms of investment.
I join my right hon. and hon. Friends who wish the Prime Minister every luck and hope that she can reach some agreement with our Commonwealth partners, but I add my voice to those who believe that, if necessary, we must make an early settlement, an early recognition and an early lifting of sanctions. I do so in the knowledge that in the short term we may have to suffer trading and economic damage. However, I am confident that the damage that we would suffer from allowing the white population to leave Rhodesia and to see that country economically weak and politically dominated by our enemies would be far more damaging to our trade, to our economy and to our political position in Africa and in the world.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I begin by quoting a letter from an African girl in Rhodesia to her friend in London. It is not too long. She writes:
My dearest Maria, I want to tell you the thing which spoiled my Easter. On Good Friday, my eldest sister was badly beaten by soldiers. They broke her left arm completely and left her half dead. She was accused of feeding terrorists. Her whole body was just one lump when I saw her last week in hospital. Her arm is now in plaster. The sight that I saw in that Mrewa hospital was terrible. There were so many victims of soldiers, innocent civilians crippled for life. My sister is just one among hundreds if not thousands who receive this kind of treatment from soldiers. On that Good Friday and on many other occasions soldiers shout, beat and torture people.
Some villages were bombed and all people killed. Such things we see with our eyes but you never see them on the news. What they give us as 'killed in crossfire' is the purposeful opening of fire among people and killing them point blank.
One may not pay too much attention to a letter from a teenage African girl,

although I think that there is a certain poignancy in the fact that it comes from where the fighting is taking place.
Perhaps a more weighty comment was made by the International Red Cross in March of this year, when it issued a statement. It is unusual for the International Red Cross to issue such a statement about the war. Among other things, it spoke of the
climate of wanton and persistent cruelty in the Rhodesian conflict".
It said that the International Red Cross
has become increasingly alarmed in recent weeks by the multiplication of acts of inhumanity committed by the parties to the conflict in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. As the fighting escalates and spreads out over the entire country and into the neighbouring countries, the warring parties adopt ever more merciless attitudes".
We need to remind ourselves that 90 per cent. of Rhodesia is now under martial law. I quote from a Rhodesian source that explains what martial law means in this context. I quote from a document issued by the Ministry of Information and Tourism in Salisbury, which states:
In martial law areas, the security forces can make their own laws to help them find and kill terrorists. They will not have to follow the ordinary laws because they can take too much time. … Here are some of the things the army can do in martial law areas"—
that is, 90 per cent. of the country—
1. they can arrest and detain people;
2. they can confiscate or destroy property such as huts and cattle;
3. they can make people work for them.
The security forces can now hold their own courts. These courts will have the power to sentence people to gaol and death".
The power to sentence to death is not academic. In a report compiled by observers on behalf of the British Parliamentary Human Rights Group it is stated:
Whilst executions are not reported in the Rhodesian press, various reliable sources confirmed that the special courts exercised their power to impose the death sentence. One Church source told us that during March 1979 alone, 28 people were hanged for political offences in Salisbury Central Prison. This was confirmed by other sources, who also told us that they had heard reports of executions being carried out on the spot. During our stay"—
that was during the election period—
the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Rhodesia presented a petition to the


High Court in which they claimed that the hanging of people convicted by martial law tribunals was unconstitutional. Subsequent to our visit, the High Court ruled that death sentences under martial law should have the same status as death sentences passed under other emergency legislation and so fall under the presidential prerogative of mercy. General Walls"—
the General is the commander of the Smith-Muzorewa forces—
has described the petition as 'vexatious and politically motivated'".

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in 90 per cent. of Rhodesia the security forces have the power to arrest without trial. Is he aware that Tanzania, which criticises the regime so fiercely, the power to arrest without trial extends over 100 per cent. of the country?

Mr. Hooley: We are discussing the situation in Rhodesia, and the Government and the House have no authority in Tanzania. I do not approve of arrest without trial in any country in the world. I have never so approved, and I do not believe that hon. Members so approve. It is a queer defence of the savagery that is taking place under the Smith-Muzorewa regime to say that some other country exercises the power to arrest without trial.
The documents that I have quoted point to the society that Smith and Muzorewa claim they have returned to legality and to constitutional government. They claim that it should be recognised by the rest of the world, but the rest of the world has no intention of granting recognition. The OAU has made it clear at the meeting that has just ended that it recognises only the Patriotic Front and that it will have nothing to do with Smith and Muzorewa.
The UN Security Council also made the point clear in resolution 448, passed on 30 April 1979. The operative paragraphs are these:

"1. Strongly condemns all attempts and manoeuvres by the illegal regime including the so-called elections of April 1979 aimed at retaining and extending a racist minority rule and at preventing the accession of Zimbabwe to independence and genuine majority rule;
2. Reaffirms the so-called elections, held under the auspices of the illegal racist regime, and the results thereof, as null and void;
3. Reiterates its call to all States not to accord recognition to any representative of or organ established by that process and to observe strictly the mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia."


That is the considered judgment of the Security Council. The OAU and the United Nations have pronounced their views.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Lusaka, are highly unlikely to assent to any form of recognition of the pathetic puppet that Muzorewa is now becoming, with his so-called majority-rule Parliament crumbling around him. Mr. Sithole and his 11 ZANU Members of Parliament are continuing their boycott of the Salisbury Parliament. Mr. Chikerema and the six Zezuru members have broken away from the United National African Council to which they were supposed to belong. They have broken from Muzorewa's party. The consequences are that the 28 white Members of Parliament, elected on a white vote roll, or nominated by whites, now have a total stranglehold on the entrenched provisions of the so-called constitution, which gives them full effective power over the police, the security forces, the judiciary and the public services. The clauses relating to health, housing, education and property rights guarantee that white privilege will remain the foundation of the structure of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it was of the former Southern Rhodesia. That is the political reality.
Why is it possible for a tiny white minority—in numerical terms, half the population of Sheffield—isolated in the middle of black Africa, to go on defying the whole continent and world opinion for so long? The key factor is the support from the Fascist-racist regime in South Africa. It has come about because of the political cowardice and hypocrisy of the Western world, which has put profit before principle and thrown over any sense of morality or political decency in its dealings with Southern Africa. The weapons used by Smith at the massacre at Chimoiu and the brutal assaults on Zambia were supplied by the West. The oil that continues to lubricate his war machine flows from Western-controlled multinational oil companies. That is indisputable. Despite the disagreeable stench from the Bingham report, nothing has been done to stop that flow. So far from stopping it, I believe that recently the Prime Minister gave her special blessing to an arrangement, under a swap between BP and Conoco, to


make sure that South Africa continued to receive her oil, notwithstanding the upheavals in Iran.
The brutal and illegal occupation of Namibia continues. The atrocities of apartheid go on undiminished. A few months ago the Western world was still kowtowing to Balthazar Vorster even when he was tottering on the point of scandal and disgrace in his own country over Muldergate.
There are only three honourable courses of action open to the Government. First, there must be no recognition of the so-called internal settlement in Zimbabwe. The OAU, the United Nations and the Commonwealth have indicated in one way or another, by decision or by specific resolution, that they will have nothing to do with that regime. It would be international political lunacy if the Government were to recognise it. It is of cardinal importance to make it clear that we shall not deal with Smith. He is the symbol of the whole tragedy of Rhodesia. He went on in an arrogant, self-confident manner, rejecting advice, rejecting settlements and possibilities from various Governments, on HMS "Fearless", HMS "Tiger", the Pearce Commission, efforts by Lord Home and Conservative Governments as well as the previous efforts by Labour Administrations.
Mr. Smith knew where he was going. He was going ahead—the man of destiny for Rhodesia. He provided a destiny for Rhodesia, a destiny of blood, death, torment and economic destruction. The Government and Parliament should make it clear that with whomsoever we deal from now on, it should not be Smith. He is the symbol of the whole tragedy.
There should be a ruthless application of oil sanctions against South Africa and the threat of wider economic sanctions if she continues to support Smith, allows the flow of oil and arms to Rhodesia and if she continues to occupy Namibia against the considered judgment of the International Court and the resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations.
We must give full support to the authentic national independence movements in Southern Africa, the Patriotic Front, SWAPO and the African national movements in South Africa. In plain political

common sense, that is the only sensible course. They are the men and the movements which, over possibly the next five years, and certainly over the next decade, will rule these countries. Only in that way, by recognising these political realities, can some vestige of political honour be salvaged from the miserable tale of duplicity and deceit that has made up Western policy in Southern Africa for more than two decades.

7.36 p.m.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must confess that my reaction as I listened to the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) was one of increasing dismay and despondency. To make my own maiden speech following two such speeches was not a prospect that I relished. Had I been able to do so, I should have bolted out of the door. However, I am in the position of having to make my speech. The only way in which I may properly follow such speeches is by being extremely brief.
First, I should like to pay a tribute to my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Nantwich, John Cockcroft. As those hon. Members who were in the House during the previous Session will recall, John, unfortunately, for personal reasons, was unable to fight the election. For three years I understudied him as candidate in Nantwich. They were not easy years for him. However, his courtesy and consideration to myself and family are matters for which I shall be grateful to him for a long time. He made many friends in the House. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing him a long and successful career in the City firm for which he now works.
I am extremely fortunate to represent such an excellent seat as Nantwich, which not only makes the best cheese in Europe but has great historic connections and much fine architecture. As a constituency it has a mixture of almost every kind of agriculture and industry, ranging from the computer industry to the smallest farms. It contains the elements which make our country so great, and a good cross-section of our community.
On might imagine that there was a feeling of indifference in Nantwich on the


subject of Rhodesia. However, that is not so. It is a matter of the gravest concern to our people who vote for parties of all political complexions that for so long the Rhodesian people should have been left unsupported by the British. What I say will probably be more controversial than is usual in a maiden speech. If hon. Members feel it right to intervene, they should not hesitate to do so.
I must declare that I am among those—I believe that there are many of us—who regret that the sanctions were not lifted a long time ago. I specifically regret that the Government did not see fit to remove the sanctions as soon as they were elected to power. My own belief is that had that been done my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Lord Carrington would not be facing the unenviable task of meeting the Commonwealth leaders in Lusaka, with those leaders attempting to wield a stick over their heads to persuade them to act in a certain way towards Rhodesia.
I should like to make two or three very short points concerning the reasons for the delay. The Prime Minister has told us that she is unable at the moment to commit herself or the Government to acceptance that the fifth or sixth principles has been duly complied with. I appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty over the diplomatic consequences of any such statement at this time. I must say, however, that the article in the Sunday Express by Lord Home last Sunday, read by people throughout this country, seemed to give absolute confirmation to many of us that the six principles have now been utterly complied with.
If that is indeed the case, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree—it can be inferred from her speech earlier—that when those six principles are complied with we have no moral alternative but to honour the word that we have successively given and to recognise the Rhodesian Government. The only question then remaining is: how soon can this be done? The reason for delay appears to be twofold. First, there are the pressures that would be brought to bear on the Rhodesian Government and the Rhodesian people by other African States were we to go ahead and recognise the new Government unilaterally.
I appreciate that difficulty, but I would, with respect, say this. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Mukome, the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. when he came here, and I can say that the Rhodesian Government are in no doubt whatever that they will be in far graver danger if we delay in recognising them than they will ever be from other consequences if we go ahead, lift sanctions, and give them recognition unilaterally. I urge the Prime Minister not to take the line that Rhodesia will be endangered by our recognition. If other African States and other Commonwealth States appear to use that as a threat, I respectfully suggest that we should counter it rather than retreat from it.
The second reason for delay is one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who is not now in the Chamber, described as irrelevant. I refer to the threat to our trade with other African countries. I believe that this country has for far too long allowed our foreign policy, and some aspects of our domestic policy, to be governed by fear—fear of the consequences, fear of the action that others will take against us if we act in a way that we know to be necessary and right.
If I am right in saying that the six principles have been fulfilled, I respectfully ask the House to make absolutely clear our determination to honour our pledge and not to be deterred from that course by any threats—trading, military or otherwise—that might be made directly against us.
I conclude by taking up one point that was mentioned earlier by several Labour Members. It is about white officers in the Rhodesian army. Mr. Mukome made it absolutely clear when he was here that it is the wish of the black majority ruling party that the white officers should remain in charge of the army, because they are the most qualified people to do so. The point has already been made that if we insist upon the Rhodesians removing their senior military men from command the Government will no longer have sufficient military strength to meet the growing pressure from the Soviet-backed forces which threaten their land.
I hope that the House, if we are to have a Division on the issue, will overwhelmingly show its support for the


Rhodesian regime and its determination to see legality restored in Rhodesia at the first available moment.

7.44 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: It falls to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to congratulate the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) on his maiden speech. I congratulate him on the lucidity of his comments. He said at the outset that he would be unconventional, in that he would be controversial. I must say that I disagree with almost everything he said, except for the comment about cheese at the beginning of his speech, when he was talking of his constituency. However, having listened to him, and knowing already that he is an hon. Member of some good humour, I am sure that he will accept my criticism of what he said in exactly the same spirit as that in which he joined in this controversial debate.
It has been said that the longer we delay recognition, the greater the danger to the regime. That seems to me to be the strongest argument for not recognising it. If the regime is in control, and if everyone is in agreement that there has been an election on the basis of one man, one vote, and that democracy has been upheld, what is the danger in not recognising it? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of danger in the present position, whether the regime is recognised or not, but I do not follow his logic in arguing that we should recognise it as quickly as we can, otherwise the position will deteriorate.
It was also argued that there should be early recognition and an early settlement, but the two things are not the same. I do not believe that the Government are poised to recognise the regime within the next few days or weeks. We shall have to wait and see. We could recognise the regime, but that would in no way imply that there would be a settlement and that everything would run smoothly from then on. The position is quite the contrary, in that the two things do not go together, and it is very important that we should recognise this.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), in a remarkably sensitive speech, spoke with great clarity about the fears and suspicions on all sides. He was absolutely right about that. These

fears and suspicions have their roots in the history of this sad colony, going back over many years. We cannot brush aside those fears and suspicions, be they in the minds of the black Africans or in the minds of the whites who are there, by saying that if this so-called settlement is recognised, everything will be all right.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I shall be going to Lusaka in a few days' time. Like him, I share the concern about the Jimmy Young programme coming from Salisbury. During the presentation of the internal settlement, I wrote to the BBC complaining of its description of what was taking place in Rhodesia as one man, one vote. I pointed out that the whites had had two votes, and that the blacks had never had the opportunity to vote on the internal settlement but only on who should administer it. After two weeks the BBC replied, accepting my correction. The BBC accepted that it was not one man, one vote, and stated that what it meant to imply was that the Government had been democratically elected. But that is another issue.
My point is that large numbers of people in this country, because of the presentation of what took place in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in regard to the so-called internal settlement, really believe that it was based on one man, one vote. They believe that the election was fair, and that the six principles—hon. Members have said this here today—have been upheld. That is just not true.
When we look back at the history of the promises and commitments made by successive Governments on the very important point that any settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, we all know—if we are honest with ourselves and consider what was in that settlement—that the people of Rhodesia as a whole have never been asked to say whether they approve the settlement. What they were asked to do, in a very complicated way—I do not have time to go into it in detail—was to say which group of people, who had been nominated in the first place, was to run the country after a settlement which had already been approved only by the whites.
Going back on the history of this sad affair in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, it seems to


me that we never learn. One reason why there are the fears and suspicions that have been spoken about is that, from the moment decolonisation took place, and freedom and nationalist movements rose up in Africa, Britain always appeared to be on the wrong side.
Time and again in history Britain has had to eat her words. At the end of the day she has had to acknowledge that the road to independence was the right road and that she must acknowledge those leaders she had reviled over the years. Historically—this is where most of the fear comes in—black people in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and Africans in many independent States in South Africa, are rightly suspicious.
If we go back to the "Tiger" and "Fearless" proposals that many of us fortunately opposed from the beginning, we see that we learnt nothing. One of the fundamental mistakes that were made then was that Ian Smith—the tribal chief of the whites as he has been called—got together with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) and others, and said "We have a settlement here. We have excluded the people whose futures are at stake. Why can you not all accept it? It seems perfectly reasonable to us".
The same mistake has been made now. When hon. Members say "Where are Mugabe and Nkomo, why do they not join us?", the reason is obvious. First, while Ian Smith remains in a position of power and influence in Rhodesia we shall never get the co-operation of Nkomo and Mugabe. I believe that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister has already begun to recognise that. That is the first thing that must be learnt.
The second point is that we shall not get an agreed settlement by cooking something up and then going to the people who are most directly concerned—support for whom is growing all the time—and saying "This is what we have cooked up, why do you not join us?" It cannot be done that way either.
At the end of the day we shall have to sit down with Nkomo and Mugabe and discuss a proper internal settlement for Rhodesia which will have to be based on one man, one vote. Before it is decided which political party rules and makes up the Government, there must be a settlement that is put to the people as a whole.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) could explain something to me. She said that an internal settlement must be based upon one man, one vote. Surely she knows as well as I that it has been made quite clear by Robert Mugabe that he will not accept one man, one vote at any time and that he himself will rule. That has been said time and again. It was emphasised last year and it was admitted by the hon. Lady's own Front Bench.

Miss Lestor: I do not believe that. What was said has been taken completely out of context. Let us get the argument straight. I am putting forward what I believe must be the solution for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I also believe what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), that where there is martial law, where there has never been democratic rights for 90 years, where nationalist movements have arisen and leaders have been banned and there has been imprisonment without trial, where there has never been freedom to state ideas, it is understandable that statements should be made about suspicion and difficult problems that will arise when a change to a democratic society is suggested. I am not saying that Mugabe and Nkomo are right. What I am saying is that the only way we shall reach the point when we can have an agreed constitution that can be put to the people as a whole on the basis of one man, one vote is to talk with Nkomo and Mugabe and through them get the desired constitution. We shall then be able to start to argue and discuss who will be in control through a democratic election. I do not believe there is any other way that it can be done.
My fears and apprehension about the matter are that we have learnt nothing since 1965, when UDI was declared. Here we are making the same mistakes and assumptions, completely divorcing ourselves from a situation that, for over 20 years at least, has been rooted in suspicion, fear and mistrust. Today, some hon. Members—not all, but some—have said that with a crumbling internal settlement the sooner we can rid ourselves of this situation and recognise the regime, the better. That will not end the matter. The armed struggle will continue.
The only way that we can have any hope of avoiding handing on to our children a continuation of the armed struggle is to recognise that what we have now is not acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. We have to go further and talk to those who have not been included in the settlement. We must recognise that while Smith is there—the architect of UDI, the person responsible for an illegal regime and for carrying out illegal acts of hanging, imprisonment and preventing people taking part in any settlement—he is the biggest barrier to a solution. We must recognise that. The Government must recognise that. I believe that the right hon. Lady, if she has not already recognised it, will have it brought home to her very clearly in Lusaka next week.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: This afternoon we heard three excellent maiden speeches which commanded the attention of the House. I should like to make specific reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), who spoke of his vision of the blessings that could be bestowed not only on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, but on the whole of Central Africa, if that country were at peace. He also spoke of the terrible suffering that the people of Rhodesia—specifically the black people—continue to suffer by day and by night while this matter remains unresolved. My hon. Friend spoke with particular poignancy, in view of his own personal and tragic loss in the conflict a year ago.
A new situation confronts the House since we debated the issue last November. The people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia have spoken clearly and overwhelmingly, and we owe it to them to respect their views. It is difficult to conceive whose views Opposition Members are seeking to put forward when they try to downgrade and deny the validity of the important exercise in democracy that has taken place in Central Africa, and which has been so decisive in its results.
There is now a black majority Government and Parliament in Rhodesia. There is a black Prime Minister, Lord Boyd declared that the elections were free and fair, and Lord Home confirmed that, in his judgment, the six principles have now

been satisfied. As Lord Home was the architect of no fewer than five of those principles, it might be difficult for anyone to gainsay his judgment on the matter.
It is an appalling commentary on the disarray of Western democracies today that three months after majority-rule Government came into being not one Western Government has extended the hand of friendship and support to that fledgling democracy of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, though it is beleaguered on all sides by forces of terrorism and Soviet imperialism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor), in an able and courageous maiden speech, put his finger on the root of our disarray when he said that for too long we—I think that he was talking not just of our own country but of all the Western democracies—have allowed our judgment and policies to be ruled by fear. This must cease to be the case. Above all, Rhodesia remains a British responsibility. It must be for us to take the lead in bringing Rhodesia forward to recognition and independence. It is inconceivable that any hon. Member should wish to see the bullet prevail over the ballot box. If any hon. Member does, he has no business standing for election to a democratic assembly. If we do not wish to see the bullet prevail over the ballot box, it is our duty to provide swift aid to ensure that the ballot box triumphs over the bullet.
I am delighted that the ill-conceived Anglo-American plan, whereby the Rhodesian security forces—though they be 80 per cent. black already—would have been stood down in favour of the rival terrorist gangs to whom we were to hand over power, is dead and buried. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not just on her excellent speech this afternoon but, above all, on her determination and shrewdness of judgment when she so successfully upstaged the Foreign Office and the United States State Department by declaring that there was no majority in Parliament for the renewal of sanctions this coming November.

Hon. Members: Wrong.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If it was the Prime Minister's intention to make clear that there was no prospect of sanctions going through the House, is it right that


such a statement should be made in camera and not in a proper statement from the Government Dispatch Box? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying—that the House of Commons is held in such contempt by his right hon. Friend that she deals with major foreign policy issues in off-the-cuff remarks on a sortie round the world?

Mr. Churchill: I venture to believe that that was not an off-the-cuff remark. Indeed, I believe that it was an expression of a considered opinion with which the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members would agree. However, there remain those who, since they have no basis for criticising the validity of the elections or, indeed, the turn-out and participation in those elections, now seek to attack the constitution on which those elections were fought. I very much hope that my right hon. Friends will not embark upon this particular slippery slope.
Changes of a window-dressing character will never appease the hostility of the hardliners in Africa, let alone in the Soviet bloc countries. While changes of substance could undermine the whole basis of the internal settlement—that is, of course, what certain Labour Members would wish to see—and imperil the verdict of democracy in Rhodesia, I believe that Britain has an obligation of honour to the peoples of Rhodesia. That arises out of the Anglo-American plan that was put by Dr. Kissinger to Mr. Smith and his Government in September 1976, which was the basis on which the Smith Government agreed to go forward to majority rule elections within a two-year period.
The Rhodesian Government have fulfilled every one of their obligations under that Anglo-American plan. It is now incumbent upon us to fulfil our side of the bargain, which was to enact independence forthwith, to lift sanctions and to provide economic aid. Unbelievably, although it is the case, we also promised that there would be a halt to the terrorist warfare. I believe that that is something beyond the capacity of any British Government to deliver, and I am amazed that the previous Administration should have seen fit to put it forward as a serious proposal. However, I believe that we are duty and honour bound to fulfil our side of the bargain now.
We have an obligation not just to those in the white majority Government who

counted on our word in September 1976. We now have an obligation of honour to those who form the black majority Government, who, over the years, have been told by successive British Governments of every political complexion that once they fulfilled the six principles—initially, it was the five principles—the British Government would recognise Rhodesia, end the state of illegality and lift sanctions.
It has been established by those most directly concerned with formulating these principles that all six have now been satisfied. It is for us now to honour our obligations. Time is of the essence, as the Prime Minister herself has made clear. It is of the first importance that as swiftly as possible we should now throw a lifeline to the peoples of Rhodesia so that they are not circumvented and dragged down into an abyss of bloodshed, terror and lawlessness, in the event that the forces of terrorism prevail. From that point of view it is a matter of profound regret not merely that three months have passed since the Rhodesian elections but that a further three months will pass before this House, under present plans, can have an opportunity of reconsidering this matter following the discussions that are to take place at the Lusaka conference.
I ask my right hon. Friends to give serious consideration to recalling Parliament in the early part of September so that we can consider the enactment of a Rhodesia independence Bill.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Tom McNally: What we have just heard is an echo of what we have heard in this House not just for the last few months but for the last 15 years. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech earlier and heard the cheers from Government supporters below the Gangway. Those cheers came from many of those who cheered Ian Smith in 1965 and who cheered every rebellion against successive Governments between 1965 and the present day.
It is right to put into the balance not just the future of the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia but also the record of the people who have had control of that country. We must ask why they have changed their opinions in the last few months. I do not believe that there has been a change of opinion about what is best for the black majority in Rhodesia


among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway or among the white racist minority in Rhodesia. That is why some of the speeches today ring a little hollow. They come from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have backed a regime that has led its country to disaster.
Almost 15 years ago I came to the House as a student from University College, London, leading a delegation opposing UDI. In the House there was a feeling of importance—that we were in control, would pass resolutions and dictate affairs. Sadly that was not true. We have failed the people of Rhodesia, but successive Labour and Conservative Governments have not sold out.
One of the helpful things that the Prime Minister said today was that she was willing to consider other opinions. Since I made that visit to the House I have worked at Labour Party headquarters and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the Foreign Office and at No. 10. In this House we have a debt of honour to the people of Central Africa. I passionately hope that in the first euphoria of victory the Prime Minister does not sell them short. She should look to the future but also to the past. The problem of Rhodesia could have been solved if the white minority, supported by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, had made the mental leap a decade or so earlier that would have given Rhodesia a chance in Central Africa. Paying our debt of honour will be more difficult for a Conservative Government.
In 1976 I was sent to Rhodesia with my noble Friend Lord Greenhill to talk with Ian Smith about the prospects of a peaceful settlement. Ian Smith and his supporters below the Gangway always want to look to the future and never back. If we look back, however, we see why there has never been a solution to the problems in Rhodesia. I accept the comments of the right hon. Member for Brighton. Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that Mr. Smith is a factor to be considered. During that visit Lord Greenhill was pressing Mr. Smith about the problem, and Mr. Smith said that he sometimes thought that their little game of UDI had run its course. That was probably true in 1976 and even 10 years before.
What price has that little game of UDI cost? It has ruined the prospects of peaceful transition, and I desperately hope that the Prime Minister can pluck something out of the present situation. Looking back over that 20-year period, we must ask how many times Ian Smith could have brought about a solution to the problem.
In 1975 I was in Jamaica with my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and I met Joshua Nkomo off the plane from New York. The first thing that he told me was that he had that night seen his daughter for the first time in 10 years. He had spent 10 years in Ian Smith's detention, as had Sithole and Mugabe. That history cannot be wiped out. It is a decade of opportunity rubbed out by one man. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway now speak as exponents of multi-racial rule, but where were they in the 1960s when multi-racial rule by Ian Smith was within reach and there was not a Russian within 1,000 miles of Salisbury?
We had an extraordinary speech today that stretched from the overthrow of the first Ramsay MacDonald Government to Ian Smith being the leader of the white tribe of Rhodesia. It is not good enough for those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to threaten the Government. I was pleased with the Prime Minister's speech. She had moved away from the stance that she adopted during her sojourn in Australia, but we must now seriously consider what she will do in Lusaka because it will be a serious and dangerous conference.
The actions of the Smith regime have damaged not only the future of Rhodesia but that of its surrounding countries. Ian Smith is not where he is today because of an inspiration from heaven about black majority rule. He is there because there was a coup in Portugal and because Mugabe and Nkomo have organised a guerrilla group. Those who have gone out into the bush and fought and died and who have seen their comrades hanged in Salisbury gaols will not lightly give up their cause because suddenly Mr. Smith and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Government Benches see a new approach. Great sacrifices have been made by the Patriotic Front and the young liberation forces in


Rhodesia. We cannot roll back history. I should have been pleased had Joshua Nkomo shown more common sense in the early 1960s.
I should have liked Mr. Smith to take a number of the lifelines offered him in the last five years. However, blood has been spilt and organisations have been created. We must now examine the prospects for the Conservative Government.
I have no respect for the role of the Soviet Government in Africa. Their opportunism is despicable. If we recognise the reality of what is happening, the Africans will respond. We must not drive the Africans into a Soviet cul de sac. We have a lot to offer to Africa.
We have heard about the contribution that the Commonwealth has made and about our contribution in overseas aid and technology. Our contacts with Africa are superior to anything provided by Eastern Europe. However, there is a gap. That gap causes the most passionate feelings in Africa. There is a North-South conflict between the races. We must understand that the Commonwealth countries in Africa will make great sacrifices to fulfil their commitments in that racial conflict.
The danger is that we shall be lured into the black-white conflict and the East-West conflict on the wrong side, on the wrong issue and at the wrong time.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a provocative speech. Mr. Smith is the issue. If he were to go now, many problems would be solved. In 15 years Mr. Smith has achieved a great advance. He has split the black nationalist movement. He has held on to real power.
Mr. Smith has managed to convince a number of Conservative Members that his is a crusade against Communism in Southern Africa. The reality is that he will receive no world recognition. There are 14,000 more guerrillas and widespread emigration. I do not imagine that the spear-carriers will stay with the great white chief. The prospect for Soviet involvement in Southern Africa is enhanced by Smith's continuing presence.
I hope that the Prime Minister will recognise three basic realities. I hope that she will say to the front-line Presidents that Bishop Muzorewa has proved a point and that he has support within

the country. I hope that she will say that his is a voice that should be listened to. He puts Chikerema and Sithole into perspective. I hope that the Prime Minister will also say firmly that the settlement cannot be sustained in the international community without further negotiations and further elections.
Mr. Smith would enhance a solution by going—and going now. The arguments about his contribution to the white tribe of Africa do not hold against the fact that within the Rhodesian white population there has always been a large community—20 per cent. at the last election—who will stay and work with a black Government.
I should like the Prime Minister to go to the Commonwealth conference with the desire for a peaceful settlement but with the knowledge that we shall not accept the Smith settlement. I believe that the Bishop is an honourable man. However, he has swallowed Smith's settlement. Let us have none of that. Let us send the Prime Minister with that message.

8.25 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I pay tribute to the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) gave the House his views. I agree with him to the extent that, as one looks back over the long history of this rather sad story, one can enumerate a long list of missed opportunities.
I doubt if any party in this issue comes out of it well. All of us have failed, in one way or another, to make the most of the opportunities that came along in times gone by. But they are times that have gone by. We are faced with a different situation, with the prospect of imminent decisions being taken. It is looking to the future that I think is the most important contribution that we can make at this time.
I think that many of the speeches from the Opposition Benches have been far too pessimistic. They have failed to recognise the tremendous advances that have been made in Rhodesia. They seem in many respects almost to wish that those advances had never happened. They seem to hanker back to those old days when they could hate Smith with all the venom that they could uster. That is now past. I hope that they will


look to the future and demonstrate some degree of statesmanship, as I believe the hon. Member for Stockport, South demonstrated in his speech.
We have had so many maiden speeches of exceptional calibre and quality that I nearly found myself beginning my remarks by saying that, having been an hon. Member of the House for more than a quarter of a century, I am in such fear and trepidation in advancing my views following on the competent performances that we have witnessed that I ask for the indulgence of the House. However, that might be going a little too far, and I ask only for the indulgence of the House in hearing me out while I put my points forward as quickly as I may because I am aware that there are many hon. Members who still wish to take part in the debate.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recognises that on the question of Rhodesia the hopes of so many people in this country rest in her. It is a subject on which views are very deeply and passionately held, and I am certain that she understands that. After all that has been achieved in Rhodesia, and to which she paid tribute, it has been hard to understand why we have not been more positive in our recognition of that fact. I welcome the significant changes of emphasis and of tone in our dealings with the Government of Rhodesia, which were evident from her speech.
We cannot ignore the significance of what has been started in Rhodesia. They are engaged in an experiment, having seen the mistakes made in many of their neighbouring countries. They are engaged in a carefully phased changeover. They are trying to make a gradual advance as experience is gained. The Bishop is going out of his way to welcome back all who have taken part in terrorist activities, provided they return peacefully and are prepared to play their part in the new State of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. It is most important that this experiment should succeed. I am in no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants the experiment to succeed. She must therefore be most anxious to secure for it the widest possible degree of international support, among Commonwealth members and outside.
None of us should be under any illusion. There are many who want the experiment to fail, and to fail even before it has properly begun. Russia is certainly one. The hon. Member for Stockport, South recognised that fact and condemned Russia's cynical conduct in Central and Southern Africa. Russia has imperialist ambitions. We are, or should be, all too familiar with Russian tactics. The backing of terror, the callous promotion of the arms struggle and the indiscriminate slaughter of a peace-loving people are the tactics by which Russia seeks advance in Southern Africa.
Another factor to consider is the Liberal-Left alliance, which is damagingly prevalent in this country and in the United States of America on this subject. The members of that alliance seem to find it impossible to contemplate a solution which they themselves have not devised or which does not involve the total capitulation of the whites.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will need all her many qualities of leadership when she goes to Lusaka. I hope that she will not become committed to yet another constitutional conference. I beg her not to be involved in a scheme for more delay. Such delay will damage, if not completely destroy, what has already been achieved. If we allow this matter to drag on much longer we shall be party, to our lasting shame, to wrecking the only real hope for a multi-racial State in Africa.
It has been recognised in all parts of the House during the debate that time is running out. In a sense, we are at a turning point. We can either witness increased tragedy and chaos in Rhodesia or we can witness wider participation in the multi-racial Government of Rhodesia and the involvement in her economic growth and stability of neighbouring African States. The key to the direction in which Zimbabwe-Rhodesia will go is largely in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Time is running out. The day is not far off when my right hon. Friend and her Government must act on this issue with the same courage as they have shown on so many issues at home.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Frank Dobson: We have heard practically everyone blamed today for the


situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia except the place where I believe the blame most heavily lies. It lies with successive British Governments and successive British Parliaments. The performance of successive British Governments and the monitoring of those Governments by successive Parliaments has been a disgrace to this country and to our system of government and has revealed a great number of shortcomings in that system.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to ramshackle regimes in Central and Southern Africa and to the history of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The most ramshackle regime of the lot has been the British regime here. UDI was declared in 1965. Sanctions were introduced shortly afterwards and eventually bolstered by is United Nations sanctions about two years after that. Allegedly, the British Government and the British administrative machine, the Armed Forces and this Parliament were committed to enforcing those sanctions so that they would bring down the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
Those sanctions failed. I believe that they failed partly because of the collaboration of Mozambique and South Africa in propping up the Smith regime, but largely because of a total failure of will on the part of successive Governments and this Parliament to make them work.
If one wants to consider what a wonderful effort has been made by the British Government over the years, I point out that in the time since 1965 only 38 companies have been prosecuted for breaches of sanctions, of which 26 have been convicted. Three cases are pending. It is six weeks since I asked the Attorney-General whether he would give me a list of those which had been found guilty. A list has been promised to me but, such is the effort and interest which the Attorney-General's office puts into this matter, that, six weeks later, I still have not been supplied with that list. However, as far as I know, not one oil company is on the list of those prosecuted. It is ironic that one of the companies prosecuted was found guilty of supplying petrol pumps.
The copy of the Bingham report which is available to hon. Members excludes a section which has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The

report represents the most disgraceful series of episodes in the history of this country. I am quite serious about that. I take that extreme view. The report has been compared with Watergate in the United States. Hon. Members will recall that that affair brought down the President of the United States. However, compared with Watergate, this matter is much more important. Watergate was about a squalid political burglary. This report is an expose of the total failure of this country and our system of government to achieve what this Parliament decided should be achieved. It has brought us disgrace throughout the world and, very rightly, it disgraces us.
What is more, its effects are of immense significance, certainly far beyond the effects of the squalid Watergate affair. As right hon. and hon. Members have said this evening, people are being killed in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia today because no settlement has been achieved since 1965, and people living in the countries surrounding Zimbabwe-Rhodesia are dying or living in more squalid conditions than would have pertained had their economies not been dominated by the festering sore of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in the middle.
God knows, no one can envy the Prime Minister her task in Lusaka. If she is to convince in Lusaka the other Commonwealth Governments and the non-Commonwealth Governments which are close to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that the British are absolutely committed to bringing about a peaceful multi-racial settlement in Rhodesia, she has a lot of explaining to do. To be fair to her, she does not have a lot of explaining to do about the Government of which she is the Prime Minister. She has a lot of explaining to do about the Governments of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were the Prime Ministers, and possibly about the Government of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was the Prime Minister.
We have to remember that there has been a failure at civil servant level. There has been a major conspiracy by multinational oil companies operating from this country. The diplomatic service, for which we pay so much and about which we hear such paeans of


praise at times, apparently did nothing to identify the flow of British oil into Rhodesia. The British secret service, which appears to spend most of its time monitoring cars parked outside Communist Party meetings in Walsall or on similar activities, did nothing to identify the illegal transmission of British oil from South Africa and Mozambique which involved British companies. If the secret service did identify it, the information was not passed on. If the information was passed on, senior civil servants did not pass it to Ministers. If they did do so, the Ministers did nothing. They denied propositions which were put to them in the House, and subsequently misled the House.
It is also clear from the Bingham report and other reports on this subject that the whole system of communicating vital information between major Government Departments, including the Department of Energy and its predecessors, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Prime Minister's Office, the Cabinet Office and the Attorney-General's Office, did not work.
I suppose I can say that I am not guilty, but hon. Members who have been in the House since 1965 have to acknowledge that Ministers misled them with successive answers about the flow of oil to Rhodesia. I have looked at some of the questions and answers, and it seems to me that people were fairly willingly misled.
The whole of the Bingham report, including the part that has not been made available to the public—which must be even more damning than the part that has been made public—was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in September 1978. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, in reply to questions that I have asked them, have assured me, as recently as this week, that the Director of Public Prosecutions is still considering what action to take. One might think, from the amount of time that has elapsed, that there had been an industrial dispute in his Department.
A parliamentary inquiry was promised by the previous Government. The proposal went through the House of Commons but was obstructed in the House of Lords. That inquiry has not gone

ahead, and it is necessary for the House to assert itself, whether it agrees or disagrees with sanctions or whether, as was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), sanctions were daft and unenforceable in the first place. That is a valid point of view in the light of all that happened. Whatever may be people's view about sanctions, it behoves hon. Members to insist that there should be a parliamentary inquiry into this disgraceful and protracted episode.
Lord Denning is not normally quoted with a great deal of approbation by Labour Members, save in exceptional circumstances, but I entirely support him when he quoted not long ago the saying of seventeenth century lawyers:
Be you never so high yet the law is above you".
It is imperative that the House, the Government and the machinery of justice should prove to all within this country and outside it that the oil companies, Cabinet Ministers and senior civil servants are all under the law of this land as laid down by Parliament. We are all failing in our duty if we do not ensure that that occurs.
I contrast what happened in Southern Africa with the performance of all the machinery of the State and the judiciary over the Clay Cross councillors. At that time, we were told by various people, including the present Attorney-General, although he did not hold that position at the time, that to accept the actions of the Clay Cross councillors was saying
that the best way to change the law is to defy it. No democracy could survive when people decided to obey only laws that suited them".
I quote those remarks from The Times of 15 March 1975—which happens to be my birthday.
Senior and distinguished people in this country appear to have decided that, as far as Rhodesia sanctions were concerned, they would obey only the laws which suited them. The Clay Cross councillors, whatever one may think of them, did what they did as an act of public defiance in defence of the people whom they believed they represented. Rhodesia sanctions were a covert fiddle for the sake of profit—a far cry from the action of the Clay Cross councillors, and more dishonourable because of that fact.
What are the Government doing now about breaches of oil sanctions? On 26 June 1979 the Foreign Secretary wrote to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen):
In response to an approach from the Company we have told BP that we would have no objection to arrangements they propose whereby they would make North Sea Oil available for sale in EEC or IEA markets in exchange for non-embargoed third country crude which can be supplied to their South African subsidiary".
I understand that that arrangement includes a swap deal between BP and Conoco that involves about 1 million tonnes per year. It is understood that, under the swap arrangements, BP will send oil through Rhodesia to Durban, despite the fact that the Indonesian Government has declared a boycott on its oil being sent to South Africa.
In answer to a recent question from the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the Prime Minister said that the swap arrangement was
in circumstances which ensure that the swap oil will not go to Rhodesia."—[Official Report, 3 July 1979.]
However, the next day in the House of Lords, the Earl of Gowrie, in reply to a question by Lord Hatch, said that he simply could not guarantee that none of the swap oil would go to Rhodesia.
In the light of that, I asked the Secretary of State for Energy what special arrangements had been made to ensure that none of the swap oil would go to Rhodesia and if he was satisfied that this object could be achieved in the light of the law in South Africa which specifically prevents the disclosure of information on oil movements within, into and out of that country. That question was eventually answered by one of the Foreign Office Ministers, who said that British Petroleum had made clear that the assurances which it gave to the previous Government and which cover its South African subsidiary, as well as the BP group as a whole, about non-involvement in the supply of oil into Rhodesia, either directly or indirectly or through marketing arrangements that are related to the supply of oil by others to Rhodesia, remain valid and are regularly updated. He said that BP had undertaken to inform the Government immediately if it had

any difficulty in maintaining these assurances.
Any hon. Member who has read the Bingham report will know that assurances of that sort from BP and Shell are literally not worth a light. It therefore seems to me imperative that if the Prime Minister is to achieve some success, as we hope she does, in bringing together in peace the various parties in and around Rhodesia Zambabwe, she must demon-state that inside and outside this country her Government are determined—and if she does it, it will be determined as never before by a British Government—that the policy decided by this House shall be vigorously applied.
I therefore hope that before she goes to Lusaka she will announce that the Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended prosecution of the offenders listed in the Bingham report, that a parallel inquiry will be mounted into the other aspects of the case, and that in order to ensure that no more British oil, or oil from British companies, gets into Rhodesia, Britain will forthwith cease to supply oil to South Africa. There is no other way of ensuring that.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I rise to make my maiden speech with the words spoken to me by Mr. Speaker when I swore the oath of allegiance still ringing in my ears. Mr. Speaker hoped that I would enhance the traditions of the House. That I hope very much to do. I find the traditions of the House sometimes difficult to define, although on this occasion I believe that principally there are three. Perhaps not the least of the duties imposed upon a maiden speaker is to get his speech over quickly so that other hon. Members may speak as soon as possible.
The three principal traditions are to speak of one's predecessor, to speak of one's constituency, and not to be controversial, so as not to upset the other tradition of the House of hearing a maiden speaker in silence.
I have great pleasure in fulfilling the first of those traditions. Mrs. Shirley Williams was a Member of Parliament for over 15 years. She carried out her duties in the House and in the constituency with enormous charm. I do not know her personally, but I am told by


everyone I meet in the House and in the social gatherings I attend in Stevenage, Hertford and Ware of her great hard work and concern in connecton with constituency matters. I must pay tribute to her significant achievement in reaching high office and in doing so with great publicity and elan. As I pay this tribute to her, the House will be interested and no doubt grateful to hear that she has recently been given the freedom of the borough of Stevenage.
I come next to my constituency. The two factors about it that immediately spring to mind are the way in which idealism has lain behind the creation of the new town of Stevenage, and how, just as in the sixteenth century, it lies today at the heart of the community which surrounds Stevenage and Ware. In the sixteenth century Hertford and Ware was a major Quaker area which upheld the traditions of Christianity, and from which people went overseas to found the many towns in New England, including Hertford, Connecticut. A stream of idealism therefore runs through my constituency, and the most recent manifestation of it has been in the creation of the new town of Stevenage. The citizens of that town are extremely proud of being given the privilege of living there and of creating a new life and a new town. They are willing, given the opportunity, also to rebuild a new Britain as quickly as possible.
I believe that that spirit of idealism lay at the heart of the recent electoral change in Hertford and Stevenage. I believe that the people of my constituency want to rebuild Britain and make certain that people overseas as well as at home benefit in the same way as they have done.
I seek to be non-controversial, but it is becoming difficult to do so on this subject. It is a great shame to have seen in the debate such tremendous politicising of the issue. There is no doubt that in my constituency the issue is held to be beyond politics. The one belief that would draw people together is the strong conviction that the Rhodesia issue should be settled. There is a conviction that we should support Zambia, Malawi and the surrounding countries of Angola and Mozambique and try to achieve development and progress. Successive British Governments, particularly the Labour Government, have failed to produce such a solution.
I do not apologise for speaking on this potentially controversial issue, but I wish to find common ground. I believe there is much common ground if we look for it. The Prime Minister must look for the maximum amount of common ground when she reaches Lusaka next week. We owe it to the Prime Minister and to the House to find some ground upon which she could attempt to achieve the most difficult result—a settlement of the issue.
The real concerns of the world are trade, development, freedom under the law, and creating an economic climate in which people can work and use their initiative. The basis upon which those forces for good can be unleashed is the provision of security, incentive for people to work, stability, hope and vision.
We have sought to provide those things in Britain, and we must seek to provide them for the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in the coming weeks. I hope that the Budget will assist greatly in creating investment in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia through the lifting of restrictions on overseas investment.
The Prime Minister should realise that she has a very good friend in Sir Shridath Surendranath Ramphal, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred. It is through good will in the Commonwealth that we can seek a solution which is satisfactory, as satisfactory as it can be, to the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Giving trust to the Commonwealth leaders, who have so much in common with us, will, I believe, lead towards a solution.
I had the great privilege of working with the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The password of that corporation is partnership—partnership between, on the one hand, the capital provided by this country and management skills which are developed overseas and, on the other, the skills and ambitions of the people of the country in which the Commonwealth Development Corporation works.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation has evidence of success in that sphere in the countries surrounding Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Swaziland is a prime example, where funds voted by Parliament have led to development and stability. Its stability is not perhaps in


a constitutional form which some hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, would approve of, since Swaziland is a kingdom, but it is a stable kingdom which is developing and creating wealth for its poorest communities. Swaziland has developed the most efficient sugar industry in the Commonwealth. It has provided housing. It has developed rice fields and established schools in which to educate young agricultural trainees.
That form of aid lies within our grasp and must be utilised if we are to find a resolution of the problem in Rhodesia. We stand ready to make investments in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to create, I hope, the type of expansion that will help the poorest members of the community.
I have been amazed by the complete rejection of the Muzorewa Government by many hon. Members. After all, it is an attempt at partnership. It is an attempt to ensure that the white minority is given sufficient security to allow it to stay and work with the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to create a better economic climate in which everybody in that country and in the surrounding countries may survive. Would that we could find a similar constitution and a similar partnership to rule our affairs in the province of Ulster. Would that we could have found a similar solution of partnership in Vietnam. However, those solutions have eluded us. We should respect the opinions of Africans living in Rhodesia. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to pay attention to those opinions when she goes to Lusaka next week.
We must remember that majority rule in some circumstances—in many circumstances in Africa—has turned into nothing but tryranny and despair. In Lusaka next week I hope that my right hon. Friend will display the same qualities of leadership as she has displayed in Great Britain. We should take a principled approach. I agree with many hon. Members that it is an issue that has not enjoyed much principle in the past.
We must look towards the future with vision and hope. We must ensure that we conduct our negotiations with true compassion and humility and that we listen to our Commonwealth friends. We must ensure that the ambitions of individuals in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia are assisted and may begin to be realised. A

concentration on the future and on the good things that we can do should inform the discussion in Lusaka, not an arid condemnation of past events and an arid and sterile debate upon the legalities of the current position. We must look to the future to find a way through looking towards the good things of life to try to create a better world in which to live.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is a great privilege to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) on his maiden speech. The standard of the hon. Gentleman's contribution was as high as that of the three other maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. We sadly miss Mrs. Shirley Williams, who was well respected by Opposition Members. It was an achievement to win Mrs. Williams' seat and to be able to address the House. Those who have made their maiden speeches this evening have shown great courage. They have done so in a foreign affairs debate in the presence of many foreign affairs experts.
I regret that some of the progressive elements in the Conservative Party have not been called to speak in the debate. We have heard representatives of some of the great Conservative families—for example, Amery, Churchill, Macmillan and Eden. I forget the Salisburys' family name. They have all participated, but I am sure that they do not reflect the view of the Conservative Party on Rhodesia. When the right hon. Lady goes to Lusaka, she will be able to tell the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers "If you think that I am reactionary, read Hansard". We have had some of the most reactionary Conservative speeches that I have heard in the House. I think of the great names of the Tory Party. Their descendants have come down in the world. They express the most reactionary attitude to world events, one that was never expressed by their fathers or grandfathers.
It was vital to have the debate before the Prime Minister went to Lusaka. After all, it might be the last Commonwealth conference that the United Kingdom attends. South Africa was thrown out of the Commonwealth because of its racialist attitude. If some of the Conservative voices that we have heard today are heeded by the Prime Minister before


attending the Commonwealth conference, I am afraid that we might be asked to leave the Commonwealth. The British Government are not the Commonwealth, and I fear that we might be expelled.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) made an excellent maiden speech. He gave an example of the racialism that he found when he was a youngster in Rhodesia. It is far worse in South Africa. I am reminded of the story of a white woman whose skin changed colour as a result of a liver complaint. She went on a bus with her daughter. She was thrown off it. She could not sit in it with her daughter because her skin was going black. We all know the family troubles suffered by that woman. Those troubles were caused by the apartheid system in South Africa. We reject it. That is why we reject the racialism that has gone over the border into Namibia and Rhodesia. It is believed throughout the Commonwealth, Australia and the United Nations that South Africa, which was ostracised by the United Nations, tried to develop an apartheid system in Namibia. We must ensure that Namibia moves on to the pathway of independence. Its people should be given the human rights about which we hear so much in Parliament—the human rights that are denied to the people of South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, even under the internal settlement today.
Reference was made to the Rhoodie funds that have come into this country. I refer to the Muldergate scandal. A President in South Africa lost his position. We do not know how those funds were used in this country. Did Saatchi and Saatchi get hold of the funds? Where have the funds gone? We must ask those questions and receive the answers. We must demand an inquiry into how South African funds were used in this country. We know that the South Africans tried to buy the Washington Post and other American papers. They tried to purchase British newspapers. Is there undue influence in the House as a result of the money coming from South Africa?
There would never have been trouble in Rhodesia over the past 12 to 14 years if the Rhodesians had not had the support of the racialist regime in South

Africa. That is the situation. The Rhodesians have been sustained by economic and military means.
We know that the Prime Minister is to visit Africa. We realise the difficulties. It is said that she is the Iron Maiden. My word, she has problems on her own Benches. We know that the Conservative Party had troubles when some of its members voted with Labour Members to maintain sanctions.
The question I now put is the same as I put to the Prime Minister. She refused to answer it. Some people are now saying that what she said in Australia was off the cuff and that she was referring to the other place—not this House. However, I have the press release. Her words are down in black and white. I have the transcript. This is what was said:
Now there is not a strict timetable for recognition. As you know, President Carter has some problems over the resolutions on sanctions and British sanctions would lapse in November and we doubt very much whether a renewal of sanctions would go through the British Parliament. That goes for sanctions. Recognition is a slightly wider problem and could take just a little bit longer.
Before the Prime Minister goes to Lusaka, let her clarify her thoughts and clear her mind. Let her come to the country and tell us where she stands on sanctions and on the recognition of the internal settlement in Rhodesia. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal, who will reply to the debate, will clarify the situation. If the right hon. Lady goes to Lusaka, she will find that no other Commonwealth Prime Minister will do what was advocated by the members of the Conservative Party—that is to say, end sanctions and recognise the internal settlement.
We have serious obligations. We must recognise that we called upon the United Nations to support us in taking a stand on sanctions. It would be ludicrous if we were to be the only country to break sanctions that are maintained by the United Nations.
It is a pity that we have had such a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is surely one of the most important international issues to have faced this country since Suez. I hope that after the Lusaka conference is out of the way the Government will not say that they are ending sanctions or that they are to recognise


the internal settlement in Rhodesia. Parliament should be recalled before any statement is made on this issue. The matter should be left until Parliament returns after the recess. Successive British Governments have maintained sanctions, and I hope that the Government will continue to do so until we have copper-bottomed guarantees that racialism will be written out of the constitution of Zimbabwe. The British Government should not recognise Zimbabwe until that happens. Until that time, we must maintain sanctions.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I have sat here throughout the debate, and I now have only a minute or two in which to express some views that I believe have widespread support on each side of the House.
May I first say how very much I welcome the initial statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for, like her, I am glad to have seen the progress that has been made over the last year. It is very important that we should build upon it. There are two crucial points that I should like to bring to her attention before she undertakes her difficult task at the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Lusaka.
I should like to express my support for the views put forward by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. It is surely common ground in all parts of the House that we must have a settlement on the basis of the six principles, and therefore the crucial question that we have to ask ourselves is whether the settlement has been shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I was very glad indeed that in her opening remarks my right hon. Friend did not endorse the views put forward by the Boyd report. Indeed, I believe that it is clear that an election is not the same as approving a constitution. That seems to me to be absolutely apparent.
If we examine the details of the constitution, we can see good reasons for supposing that it would not be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Mr. Smith has not taken the view that an election is the same as approving a constitution, because he ensured that the white population would have a referendum as well as an election. The argument that all the black parties had agreed to

the election could equally be made in regard to the white parties, yet the whites had both a referendum and an election, whereas the blacks had only the opportunity of voting at the election. I welcome the fact that the election was held, but it is clearly not the same as endorsing the settlement, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when she discusses the matter with her fellow Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
The second point that I want to stress as strongly as I can is that it seems to me that the constitution as now framed cannot form the basis for a permanent and successful settlement. We have only to look at the details of that constitution to see that about 3 per cent. of the population have 10 seats out of 30, and probably another two, in the Senate and 20 seats out of 100, and probably another eight, in the Assembly. To say, on that basis, that there has been a one-man, one-vote election seems to me to be a very strange assertion indeed, for clearly the value of the various votes was not the same. The value of the white votes was clearly much greater, in terms of representation, than the value of the black votes. It was not, in that sense, a one-man, one-vote election. In terms of Ministers also, there is a strong bias in favour of the white population. Indeed, the more the details of the constitution are examined, the more it can be seen that it cannot be a permanent basis for settlement.
It is the case that there have previously been constitutions which have contained clauses giving preference to a white electorate and on which we have granted independence, but I think I am right in saying that there has been no case where such provisions have been entrenched in the constitution. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, when he replies to the debate, will make clear whether that is so.
It may be that we shall be told that this is a constitution which Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues have agreed to, but I believe that it is in his interests as much as those of anyone else that he should have a constitution that will last. I do not think that it is in his interests to have a constitution which is clearly biased and which, therefore, will encourage those who wish to undermine his position.
We are told that Bishop Muzorewa may not be in a position to alter the constitution. If that is so, there are obvious implications. I believe that we are generally agreed that Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is a British responsibility and that therefore it is up to us, in the final analysis, to decide what the constitution should be on which we are prepared to grant recognition and independence. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not rule out the possibility of a constitutional conference of the kind that we have had on former occasions, where the basis upon which we grant independence has received widespread approval of the House and, in addition, of the international community.
I welcome the progress that has been made. I believe that the Government and the House of Commons have a real opportunity to provide a lasting and peaceful settlement upon which we can all build and upon which we can look forward to a fine future for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But we must make changes. We must seek to persuade other countries to accept those changes to ensure that Rhodesia goes forward on a secure basis and not on a basis that could be dangerous.
Clearly, the issue of sanctions is crucial, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend was not wrong when she said that this is something that we must look at in the light of subsequent developments. The situation changes very rapidly indeed. What is clear is that if we were unilaterally to remove sanctions when there has been no satisfactory solution, that might be taken as an indication that we in this country and this Parliament are washing our hands of the whole affair. That would be extremely dangerous.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister well in the difficult negotiations ahead. We have a real chance of securing a peaceful settlement, but I do not think that we shall do so without a true acceptance of the solution by the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as a whole and some amendment to the constitution.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: We had four maiden speeches during the course of this debate, three of which I heard and one which I regret I did not hear, although I am told that the hon.

Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), who was the first of the maiden speakers, delivered a speech which revealed great personal knowledge, feeling and, indeed, great moderation. It was well received in the House.
I did have the pleasure of hearing the other three maiden speakers. I thought that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) made a really outstanding speech. I do not think I need say more than that. The hon. Members for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) both spoke very cogently, lucidly and with considerable first-hand information of the problem with which they were dealing. I am certain that the House will wish to hear from them again, not only on foreign matters but on other matters as well.
This has been a most necessary, important and, I think, most strikingly thoughtful debate. In a few days' time the Prime Minister goes to Lusaka and what is said and done there—in particular what is said and done by the British Government—could well have fateful consequences for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and much of Southern Africa. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stressed this afternoon, what is said will greatly affect the standing of this country and, perhaps, the future of the Commonwealth.
With so much at stake, the House, and the Opposition in particular, had a duty to debate fully and seriously the options for policy and the position taken up by the Government. As the House will shortly enter the recess, and it will be late October when we resume, it is especially important that the Government should be as frank and open with the House as circumstances permit.
Having listened to the Prime Minister today and taken account of the many recent statements that have been made by both the Lord Privy Seal in this House and the Foreign Secretary in the other place, I felt a little easier than I did before the debate began. Indeed, I was struck with what the right hon. Lady had to say about making proposals similar to those on which other Commonwealth countries were granted independence. I should like to have that elaborated, perhaps on another occasion. I also noted what the Prime Minister said about


the blocking powers in the present Rhodesian constitution, and in particular the composition of the major commissions that are to look after the public services there. I noted particularly what she said about genuine black majority rule. Those are important statements. Nevertheless, I shall put certain questions to the Lord Privy Seal because I want certain clarifications.
It is important that we try to establish just how much agreement—perhaps disagreement—on Rhodesian affairs exists between us. I address myself now to the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I accept that there is a minority of hon. Members, particularly on the Conservative Benches, who have held a consistent view on Rhodesia—a view that has not been materially affected by the changes over the last 12 or 24 months, but a view that goes back to the very earliest days of UDI. I exclude them, because I do not believe that I have the possibilities of persuasion when I address these particularly experienced veterans of 14 Rhodesian debates in which they have not budged an inch. I do not believe that they will budge in any period ahead.
Let me now say something about the agreement that I believe there is between us. First, we are all aware just how urgent, dangerous and precarious the present situation is. Blood is being shed in Rhodesia, and apart from a limited, sporadic cease-fire across the Zambia-Rhodesia borders, there is every indication that the fighting will continue on a substantial scale. Whatever else the April election in Rhodesia achieved, it clearly and regrettably brought no cessation to the fighting. I am sure that we all agree that if the Commonwealth conference can assist in the process of peacemaking and of reaching a stable agreement, that opportunity must be seized.
Secondly, I think that there is common ground in the recognition that wide international acceptance is the necessary condition of any lasting settlement. I certainly do not take the view that we should have our own judgment forced, either by ill-considered resolutions or by threats to our trade. I share the view of the Lord Privy Seal, as he expressed it in our foreign affairs debate on 18 May, that in the interests of Rhodesia itself:

International support and recognition, and co-operation with other African States, must be vital to a landlocked State in central Africa, above all one that is still engaged in a cruel civil war."—[Official Report, 18 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 565.]
Thirdly, I take it for granted that the necessary measure of international consent will not be achieved unless we ourselves are convinced, and others at least acquiesce in our judgment, that a settlement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. At this point, we come to an area of uncertainty. Elections in Rhodesia have been claimed by some Conservative Members as the test of acceptability. Because there is now a black President, a black Prime Minister and a black majority in the elected Assembly, they argue that the new constitution has passed the test of acceptability.
That view is far too simple. The elections have told us a great deal about the relative strength of the internal nationalist groups. They have given us some indication—but not a very clear one—of the strength and support for those who did not take part in the elections. The one thing that the elections did not tell us about is the acceptability of the constitution. As the House knows and as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) reminded us, that major issue—the constitution—was put to the white citizens but not lo the black. We should be deceiving ourselves in a most foolish way if we assert that that issue has been settled and will disappear.
There have been exchanges in both Houses on that point, but the Government have sensibly refused to accept that the elections were the test of acceptability that the fifth principle requires. They have done that in hardly clarion terms, and have been cautious and perhaps even equivocal in what they say. Nevertheless, they have refused to accept that it was that test of acceptability. That is crucial, for unless consent is genuinely obtained the constitution and all that is built on it will not endure. It will be like bricks without cement, and it will be dislodged by the first hand that pushes against it.
Fourthly, there is some agreement that further constitutional change is essential. If I have correctly understood the Government's strategy, having consulted all the parties directly and indirectly involved, and having discussed the matter


with our Commonwealth partners in Lusaka and our allies in the United States and Europe, it is their intention to put forward proposals for change on which a new agreement can hopefully be built.
I say this about those changes: I do not believe that changes at the margin will suffice. I accept that the elections were based on universal suffrage and that there was a turnout of over 60 per cent. They have produced a new and different situation, but there is still a massive entrenchment of minority rights and powers in the constitution. It is not just that the 3 per cent. of the European electorate hold 28 per cent. of the seats nor the elaborate provisions for appointments in the Administration, armed forces and judiciary that make them in effect a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
There is the major overriding fact of a veto on further change that is built into the constitution. No change can be made without the support of at least six of the European members. The constitutional review to be held in 10 years' time will, in effect, be carried out by a built-in European majority. All that adds up to a major flaw in the constitution. It entitled us to say that, in essence, what we have in Rhodesia today is a black majority Parliament in a white minority constitution, which ensures that the balance of power remains strongly weighted in favour of the minority.
None of us can have any doubt about the difficulties that lie ahead. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have referred to the atmosphere of fear and distrust that undoubtedly exists. It is easy to see from the European point of view how great the changes already negotiated must seem. It is equally easy to see how threatened they must feel at the prospect of further change that will put them and all that they have achieved under black majority rule.
Nor do I find it difficult to understand the point of view of those black Africans who helped make the internal settlement—their commitment to the agreement that they negotiated and their sense of achievement in having carried so stubborn a party as the Rhodesian Front, with its previously unchallenged monopoly of power, as far as they have. But while the difficulties of achieving movement and

compromise are formidable, all the parties involved are under great pressure to move, and movement there must be.
The internal settlement has not brought peace and security to the European minority. Bishop Muzorewa is having increasing difficulty in maintaining coherence among his followers. The majority has melted away. The massacre of over 180 supporters of Mr. Sithole is a grim portent of still further dissension.
The Patriotic Front was unable to prevent the elections from taking place. It cannot claim, as the OAU resolution wrongly asserted, to be the sole, authentic and legitimate representative of the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
All the parties know, as do the frontline Presidents, that the only alternative to serious further negotiations is a still more bitter, bloody and uncertain military struggle with a ruined country as the only prize.
The Lusaka conference provides a major opportunity. We have not asked for cut-and-dried Government proposals. Much useful talking must still be done with our Commonwealth partners before firm proposals can be made. But it is essential that the Government should go to Lusaka not as a partisan or patron of one group but in a genuinely constructive and uncommitted frame of mind.
I must comment on the great folly of 1 July, when the Prime Minister made her statement in Australia. If the right hon. Lady means to lift sanctions in November without embarking on a major new effort to bridge the gap between contending forces and without persuading substantial international opinion that this is the right course, she would make an appalling error and the most serious consequences would ensue. We should find ourselves almost totally isolated.
I am not aware of one Commonwealth country that would be ready to back us. We should not have the support of the United States and we should be in difficulty with our European colleagues. A unilateral British move would be of little benefit to Rhodesia. International sanctions would continue. Fighting and strife inside Rhodesia would continue.
Apart from the dangers of increasing outside intervention, as my noble Friend the former Lord Chancellor said in last November's debate, the Government have


a solemn obligation to comply with mandatory resolutions passed by the Security Council. We are bound in international law to maintain sanctions until there is a return to legality in Rhodesia.
I remind those who dissent from that view that in the same debate the present Lord Chancellor spoke in even stronger terms. He said that he was shocked by the suggestion that we should act unilaterally in breach of international agreement. He said that if we were to abandon sanctions
we should not only be condoning but compelling a breach of promise by the United Kingdom which has gone on record as believing that the plighted word is something that should be kept.
The Lord Chancellor said that we needed the good will of others and that
Without that goodwill, which would be lost, in my judgment—I must tell my noble friends that it is my considered judgment—and if this country were allowed to stand alone in breach of her international obligations any constructive influence we might hope to have on the Rhodesian situation would be lost and would not be recovered before the situation had deteriorated beyond our control."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 1978; Vol. 396, c. 624.]
I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor has changed his mind in the last six months. I invite the Lord Privy Seal to say whether he has a different view.

Mr. Goodhew: A Labour Prime Minister invited the United Nations to impose mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia. The Tory Party, when in Opposition, voted against that. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that a party which voted against mandatory sanctions should be obligated to follow him in the Lobby tonight or on any other occasion?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman knows the position taken by the three previous British Governments. The previous Conservative Government renewed sanctions against Rhodesia on three occasions. Do not let us get confused about that.
If we are to assist the situation and if the opportunities presented by the Lusaka conference are not to be thrown away, the House needs three minimum assurances from the Government about their stance.
First, the Government must make clear that there can be no question of lifting sanctions or recognising the Government of Bishop Muzorewa unless substantial changes are made to the Rhodesian con-

stitution. I think that that was the Prime Minister's message to the House earlier, but doubt persists and it would assist her forthcoming visit to Lusaka if the matter were cleared up.
Secondly, the Government must accept that consultations about changes in the constitution will not lead to an acceptable settlement unless all the elements in Rhodesia, including the leaders of the Patriotic Front, are brought into the consultative process.
Thirdly, the Government must accept that the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia should have an opportunity to say, in an independently supervised referendum or election, whether the constitutional proposals endorsed by the British Government are acceptable to them.
We have a chance that will not come again. The consequences of failure and breakdown will haunt us and Southern Africa for decades. I urge the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to seize their opportunity with both hands.

9.37 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, there is a certain amount of common ground on this subject, and certainly complete agreement about the maiden speeches in the debate. Unfortunately, I missed one, but I heard the other three. All those speeches, in their different ways, were highly distinguished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) was witty and entertaining. He has deep knowledge and experience of the subject, and he deployed it to good effect. His remarks about the fears and suspicions remaining among both communities in Rhodesia were particularly noteworthy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) also has deep knowledge of the subject, and he displayed it modestly and tellingly. He was especially eloquent about Rhodesia's economic potential, and he made his entire speech without a note.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) for not being here for his speech. With his experience in the Commonwealth Development Corporation, he was able to make a thoroughly authoritative contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) was vigorous and frank, particularly about being controversial. He expressed his strong views well. We look forward to hearing the first three of my hon. Friends when they are being controversial and to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich when he is being either non-controversial or more controversial.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar and to the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot be here, for the statesmanlike tone of their speeches, although, naturally, I could not agree with a good deal of them.
I assure the Leader of the Opposition that we share entirely his appreciation of the enormous value of the Commonwealth as a catalyst of progress, understanding and friendship among nations. We shall take every opportunity to strengthen it. The Government welcome this debate and the opportunity that it gives to take full account of the views of the House in their approach to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka and in formulating their policies to deal with the problems of the region. These problems have defied the efforts of successive British Governments to resolve them, but it has not been for want of trying. It is right to acknowledge that successive British Governments have tried honestly and courageously to contribute to the solution of those problems. That is certainly the way in which this Government will be addressing them.
It is not true to say, as some have said, that there has been no progress or that the Western nations have stood in the way of progress. The only form of progress which the Soviet Union and its allies have offered has been to fuel the flames of factional conflict and warfare while spreading the illusory belief that out of chaos and destruction comes the only true independence. In Namibia there has been definite progress which has been welcomed and supported by the frontline States. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, we are following this up with a new initiative, to which I shall return later if there is time.
In our dealings with South Africa, I believe that the Nine have made a significant contribution to encouraging internal reform, and we wish to see this

continued. Much more remains to be achieved, but it can, surely, be claimed justly that we in Britain have been active in trying to conciliate and in trying to defuse the tensions in Southern Africa.
Inevitably and rightly, the greatest concern has been expressed throughout the debate about the problem of Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the extent of the political progress that has taken place inside Rhodesia—of a nature and on a scale that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed that view and agreed that we should build on what has been achieved.
We do not underestimate the difficulties of translating agreed aims into a settlement with a ceasefire. I recognise, too, that there is considerable distrust of Britain among African leaders and some Rhodesian leaders because of past failures, but to claim, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did, that nothing of substance has changed in Southern Africa is palpable nonsense. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who is not in the Chamber, said much the same.
As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, a great deal has changed, notably the removal of all racially discriminatory legislation and the advent of a Government elected by universal suffrage. To say that nothing has changed, under those circumstances, seems incredible.
Nevertheless, the situation which the Government have inherited and which the Commonwealth leaders at Lusaka will have to consider is not one of our choosing. If it was possible for us to choose where to begin, it would not be from here, and I am sure that the same goes for Bishop Muzorewa. Over the years since 1965, many foolhardy acts have been committed by the Rhodesian Front regime. History will show how tragically misguided those acts were. Fortunately, I believe, reality has now sunk in, and a new beginning is possible.
I do not have to remind the House that successive British Governments—none more so than that of which my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home was Foreign Secretary—have resolutely opposed the attempts of that regime to


deny fundamental justice to the people of Zimbabwe as a whole and their right to choose their own Government. In 1972, when Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe were detained, Bishop Muzorewa acted as the spokesman of the dissenting black majority. In announcing the verdict of the Pearce Commission, Lord Home said with reluctance that there would have to be a pause while the parties reflected on the situation and tried to work out a solution. My right hon. and noble Friend was a realist. He knew the depth of almost irreconcilable feeling on both sides.
We did not wish the process of negotiation to go through so many failures or to take so long. Nor did we wish the cycle of repression and terrorism to escalate to the point reached in 1978 when negotiations between Mr. Smith and the internal parties began. Nor did we wish to see divisions created between nationalist leaders.
This tragic legacy owes much to the unyielding instincts of Mr. Smith and his supporters. This legacy and, with it, the bitterness of past experience which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West so eloquently evoked must now be put aside, because even to the most grudging observer it surely must be clear that the majority of the white community are now determined to face the future as equal citizens of a nonracial State and that a more representative Government have emerged.
Of course there are complaints. Mr. Nkomo, who himself negotiated, although unsuccessfully, with Mr. Smith, and Mr. Mugabe maintain that the settlement was inadequate because they were not involved. They were also, let it be said, attracted by the Anglo-American proposals and by the prospect of external diplomatic and material support. Progress on the lines of the Anglo-American proposals might indeed have been possible if the Patriotic Front had been prepared to accept a neutral authority during the transitional period. But it was not. That is now sometimes forgotten. Nor, incidentally, was Mr. Smith.
The experience of those long negotiations which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and Mr. Vance held over that period of 18 months contains lessons—above all, about the danger of giving all parties a veto

over progress. That contains a lesson which the present British Government must take to heart.
Considered in this light, therefore, the agreement which was achieved by Bishop Muzorewa and the internal parties is all the more remarkable. It has achieved a peaceful transfer of power from a white regime elected by 3 per cent. of the population to a black Government elected by 64 per cent. of the population. Of course it is not perfect. No constitution is flawless, and the constitution of Zimbabwe will require wide acceptability if it is to withstand the strains of a painful independence. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but no one would claim that the constitution of the Labour Party was flawless.

Mr. Dobson: We do not know whether blood was drawn at the meeting of the Labour Party executive today, but it is extremely doubtful whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had the 187 auxiliaries who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) shot.

Sir I. Gilmour: That was a heavy intervention. All violence of that sort is painful. It is to be regretted and is deplorable. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can seriously claim that that was a particular result of the constitution. It was the result of a war. A great many people were killed in this country, and in others, when we were fighting a war.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that the killing of the 183 Sithole auxiliaries had nothing to do with the war. It was the Bishop taking his revenge against Mr. Sithole for saying that the elections were not free and fair.

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can know that. He might just as well say that the missionaries who were abducted the day before had nothing to do with the war either. I do not believe it in either case. However, to claim as the hon. Gentleman did, in effect, and as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough did, that the internal settlement is bogus shows to me an astonishing lack of historical perspective. I should not have thought that the


OAU, as the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar recognised, could conceivably be justified in seeking to ostracise a leader who has achieved the free endorsement of 67 per cent. of the voters. That is a good deal better than either of our parties ever does. Nor can we afford to reject any plan which has been freely negotiated between blacks and whites in Zimbabwe. There at least are some of the bricks with which to build a settlement for men of good will.
All hon. Members are agreed on the need to bring a speedy end to the war. That is, above all, what the people of Rhodesia, both black and white, need most of all. In reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), I can tell him that the white population are leaving Rhodesia at the rate of 1,000 a month. That has been going on for about two years, and unless the war can be ended they are likely to leave in ever-increasing numbers. Nothing more urgently illustrates the need for a solution in Rhodesia.
We are all deeply conscious of the suffering and the loss of life that the present conflict brings every day to innocent people in Rhodesia and in the neighbouring States. Had it been in our power, and if the advice of successive British Governments had been heeded, this war would never have been started. It does not lie in Britain's power to bring an end to the war. A ceasefire requires the acquiescence of the people who are doing the fighting. Again in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, there are reportedly about 15,000 guerrillas inside Rhodesia. Here again, we are conscious of the need to do all in our power to bring the war to an end. That is the greatest contribution that we can make to the people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. McNally: The right hon. Gentleman said that white people are leaving at the rate of 1,000 a month. Does not that make even more barmy the idea that Mr. Smith is the great white chief of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia? Would it not be better for the whites who want to build a nation there to go, and allow real nation building? The people are voting with their feet and not following Mr. Smith.

Sir I. Gilmour: I certainly do not think that we should encourage the whites to

leave. We want to encourage the whites to stay. I have not talked to the 1,000 who are leaving each month, but I should be surprised if their departure implied any judgment on Mr. Smith. I would not think that that had anything to do with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar referred to the OAU resolution as being ill-considered. That was putting it mildly. We in the House recognise that Rhodesia is first and foremost a British responsibility, and that has been almost universally recognised. Over the years African Governments have been widely consulted and have on occasion contributed to our efforts to achieve a settlement. Tackled individually they have never shown much enthusiasm for taking the problem off our hands. Nor would it be proper that they should.
If the OAU collectively has constructive suggestions to make, we shall of course listen. In the past three months we have been in touch with every OAU country on this issue. We have sent personal envoys to 12 of them and had direct ministerial contact with three others. We have explained our thinking painstakingly and listened attentively to their comments. Of course, I cannot reveal what has been said to us in particular, but in general there was wide understanding of our position.
That being so, I deplore the recent decision of OAU Heads of State to accord the Patriotic Front the status of sole legitimate representative of the people of Zimbabwe. I believe that many African Heads of Government would also privately deplore this resolution, as it conflicts with the long-held tradition of the OAU that the choice of Government of Zimbabwe lies exclusively with the people of Zimbabwe. The resolution is profoundly unhelpful to our efforts to end the war in that country. I am grateful to know that the American Government fully share our views on this.
Nevertheless, we recognise the importance of the Patriotic Front and we have included it in our consultations. When our consultations are complete, we shall be making proposals for a settlement which we believe will be seen to be fair and reasonable.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House, these proposals will be addressed to all parties in the conflict. We hope that they will command general support, but a wider agreement depends on the willingness of both sides to enter into such an agreement. Some statements by Patriotic Front leaders suggest that they are not interested in a negotiated solution. If their objective really is majority rule for Rhodesia with a Government that is freely chosen by the people of the country, surely it should be possible to find an agreed solution.
I was disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the Patriotic Front cannot lose. That was an inappropriate and damaging comment. The House will have noted the recent speeech of Lord Carver in another place. The noble Lord said:
If the Patriotic Front continue to hold out they will not win. Neither side will win. The whole situation will crumble into chaos."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 1979; Vol. 701, c. 788.]
I believe that statement to be true.

Mr. Shore: I asked the right hon. Gentleman three questions. He has answered the second question inferentially. Will he undertake that when the proposals are finally put they will be put to the people of Rhodesia as a whole for their approval under proper supervision?

Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are in the middle of a diplomatic process of great delicacy and considerable complexity. He cannot expect me to reveal in advance each step as we go along. If the House was undertaking the negotiations it would be a different matter.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the six principles. I commend to the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the fifth principle. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home, who has unrivalled experience in these matters, has pointed out that the constitution was within the six principles. However, it is difficult to be wholly dogmatic on the point. Lord Boyd, who, again, has great experience in these matters, pointed

out in a speech in another place that it was impossible for the voters to vote for Bishop Muzorewa and against the constitution. That was not open to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) pointed out that there were good reasons why the constitution was not put to the African electorate in the January referendum. It is difficult to form a conclusive answer to the question because it is not clear whether or not the question has been put.
The Commonwealth conference in Lusaka will provide further opportunity to discuss these matters fully and frankly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has attended almost all today's debate, will listen attentively, as will my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to everything that is said on the matter. My right hon. Friend looks forward to a valuable debate over there.
No doubt the House hopes that the traditions of justice and democracy within the Commonwealth should be an immeasurable help in seeking the way forward. I sincerely hope that by the time the House reassembles considerable further progress will have been made.
I commend the two basic elements of our policy to the House. First, it is essential to build on what has been achieved. I believe that that fact is widely accepted throughout the House although some Labour Members appear to want to destroy what has been achieved. Opinions may differ on how substantial is the progress that has been made, but there can be no conceivable doubt that there is a fundamentally changed situation of which we should take full account. We should not be forgiven if matters were allowed to slide again into destructive argument about the mistakes and failures of the past.
Secondly, we are committed to seeking the widest possible acceptability for Zimbabwe. It would not serve our interests or those of the people of Rhodesia to press forward to independence on a basis that did not enjoy the acceptance of a substantial—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Motion made, and Question put,


That the draft Regional Development Grants (Variation of Prescribed Percentages) Other 1979, which was laid before this House on 34 July, be approved.—[Mr. Mather.]


The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 161.

Division No. 81]
AYES
[10.00 P.M.


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Forman, Nigel
Mellor, David


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fry, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Banks, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John


Best, Keith
Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Myles, David


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Neale, Gerrard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Neubert, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Normanton, Tom


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, Rt Hon John


Bright, Graham
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Timothy
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heddle, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Heddle, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hicks, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Buck, Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Hooson, Tom
Pawsey, James


Butcher, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Payton, Rt Hon John


Butler, Hon Adam
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Porter, George


Carlisle, John (Luton West

Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)
Jopling, Rt Hon. Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Joseph, Ht Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Churchill, W. S.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James A.
Renton, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Kimball. Marcus
Rhodes lames, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Denshore
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Elliott, Sir William
McQuarrie, Albert
Speller, Tony


Emery, Peter
Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Eyre, Reginald
Marlow, Antony
Sproat, Iain


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Faith, Mrs. Shelia
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John







Stevens, Martin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wickenden, Keith


Steward, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas J.
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wall, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Donald
Ward, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Warren, Kenneth



Thornton, George
Watson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'fd&amp;Stev'nage)
Mr. David Waddington and


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wheeler, John
Mr. John Cope.


Trippier, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William





NOES


Alton, David
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Walisend)
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Park, George


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parker, John


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pendry, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Race, Reg


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hattersley, Rt. Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Carmichael, Neil
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Cartwright, John
Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Clark, David (South Shields)
Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ryman, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sandelson, Neville


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sever, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Sheerman, Barry


Crowther, J. S.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Lamble, David
Snape, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Davidson Arthur
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Steward, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Dixon, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dormand, J. D.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Dubs, Alfred
McNally, Thomas
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
McWililam, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marks, Kenneth
Welsh, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Whitlock, William


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Ewing, Harry
Millen, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M S (East Kilbride)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wright, Miss Sheila


Fitt, Gerard
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Flannery, Martin
Morton, George



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Foster, Derek
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly agreeed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (IRISH NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY)

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1979 (S.I, 1979, No. 746), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we consider at the same time the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Amendment) Order 1979.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the House agreeable to taking the two motions together? So be it.

Mr. Alison: The effect of these orders is to proscribe the Irish National Libertion Army throughout the United Kingdom. It is a step which has been taken only after the most careful consideration. In this country we have a tradition of free expression of political views, and there is certainly no desire on the part of this Government to punish or penalise people for their legitimate expression of political opinions. It is open to political movements throughout the United Kingdom to test their popular support at elections, although I am bound to add that certain movements in Northern Ireland have singularly failed to put their policies to the electoral test—no doubt because they know that they will obtain only a derisory response. But if, rather than devote itself to the lawful expression of political views, a movement puts its faith in the commission of violent terrorist acts, action must be taken.
The Irish National Liberation Army, so-called, has been referred to as the "military wing" of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, a political group which broke away from the official Sinn Fein in 1974. What is clear, from its own admission as well as other evidence, is that the INLA is involved in the commission of terrorist acts. Besides the dreadful murder of our former colleague, Airey Neave, the INLA has admitted guilt for a number of other terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland, including attacks on members of the security forces and attacks on commercial property. In these incidents a soldier in the Ulster

Defence Regiment, a woman prison officer, and a member of the RUC Reserve have been killed. From these acts it is also clear that the word "army" in the title of the Irish National Liberation Army—as in the case of the Provisional IRA—is a grossly misleading misnomer. What we are dealing with is a squalid criminal conspiracy.
It is against this background of admitted participation in terrorist acts that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary considered whether the organisation should be proscribed. In doing so, I know that both my right hon. Friends were concerned that proscription might merely afford the organisation a gratuitous status to which it could otherwise only pretend—a sort of spurious glamour which might be bestowed upon it simply by the act of proscription.
There is no doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained to the House on 2 July, that the INLA is a much smaller organisation than the Provisional IRA and is of much less significance, at least in numerical terms. This is the case both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, and there is always the risk that the members of a small organisation such as this will draw some encouragement, in a perverse way, by being designated as outlaws. But my right hon. Friends were persuaded that proscription was the correct course by two weighty considerations.
First, it is an affront to public sensibilities for the law to countenance an organisation openly and avowedly dedicated to criminal violence and the overthrow of civil authorities. The murderous acts for which this organisation has claimed responsibility have, I believe, sickened the overwhelming mass of our society. Public confidence in civil order and in the rule of law is undermined when such an organisation, with such openly avowed and flaunted objectives, can exist with no legal impediment.
Second, the Government believe that proscription would damage the organisation's structure and effectiveness. It may be helpful to remind the House that the effect of proscription is not only to make it an offence to belong or to profess to belong to a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to solicit or invite


financial support for it, or knowingly to make or receive financial contributions on behalf of the organisation.
This liability to arrest and possible conviction puts pressure on the less committed INLA members and is a constraint on the activists, but neither the police nor the Government claim that proscription enables immediate and substantial inroads to be made into the process of destroying the organisation. The groups with whom we are concerned in this context are not likely to issue membership cards or keep records of those who have paid their subscriptions, and the onus is on the police and prosecuting authorities to bring evidence before the courts. The proper judicial processes continue to apply, and a successful prosecution cannot be based on mere gossip or information. It is nevertheless the case that in Northern Ireland at least a number of convictions have been obtained in respect of membership of proscribed organisations in the past—50 in the first five months of this year—and many of them were associated with charges for other substantive terrorist-type offences.
The considered advice of the security forces—the police and the Army—in Northern Ireland, and of the police in Great Britain, is that proscription is a useful operational weapon against the INLA. The organisation, by its own account, is one dedicated to indiscriminate murder and destruction, and it is essential to use all available powers to bring its members to justice before the law. Hence the two orders.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Tom Pendry: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the orders before the House. In supporting the inclusion of the Irish National Liberation Army in the appropriate orders, I do so mindful of the cherished commitment of this House to the principle of liberty for the individual within society. But we in Opposition, as in Government, recognise the clear distinction between political and criminal acts. Clearly, the activities of the Irish National Liberation Army fall very much in the latter category. They do so by its own admission.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, it would be wrong of this House to iso-

late one act alone as the reason for proscription. The tragic, untimely and futile death of Airey Neave rightly shocked the Members of this House and the public at large, and must have weighed very heavily in the minds of those Ministers who are responsible for proposing these amended orders tonight. But the Irish National Liberation Army has been responsible for many other acts which have been equally horrible. On the Labour Benches we recognise, however, that the Government took this step after the most careful of examinations. Although it might be thought that we are giving to these terrorists extra publicity by this act of proscription, we nevertheless recognise that when it passes these orders tonight the House will carry with it the overwhelming support of the people in the United Kingdom.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that if my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) catches your eye later, he would like to make a particular point in relation to the Ulster Volunteer Force within the context of Great Britain. Suffice it for me to say that we commend the order to the House tonight.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: It is somewhat ironic that these orders should be debated on the same day as the publication of an article in The Guardian by Peter Jenkins. The writer obviously fears that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may be sucked into the same bog as other good men before him. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be spared that fate.
Mr. Jenkins would appear to have fallen victim of the bog himself because of the error of believing that a structure can be devised to placate the terrorists and end the violence. The longer he and others strain their eyes searching for that somewhat elusive objective, the deeper they will be plunged into the slough of despond.
The necessity for these two orders should expose the fallacy of the concept of a political solution—a concept that conjures up some form of contrived device to set limits on democracy and to ensure that all comers will be guaranteed a right to stop the administrative


machine dead in its tracks and prevent progress if they so desire.
Let us suppose that the 1973 power-sharing experiment had continued to exist. What could have been in it for the Provisional IRA? There was nothing in it for the IRA. Let us suppose that the power-sharing Executive had, at the time, come to the conclusion that the participation of the SDLP was not enough to end the violence and that an allocation of seats to the IRA—through election, of course—was the only hope of success. The moment that the Provisional IRA became part of the Establishment and stopped fighting, it would have been overtaken on the right by the so-called Irish National Liberation Army, precisely as it had overtaken and destroyed the official IRA when it turned political.
These two orders should convince the most ardent power sharer that the solution, and the inclusion in that solution of terrorist groups, will not buy off groups such as that named in these orders—the Irish National Liberation Army—the objective of which is not concealed. The objective of the INLA is liberation from Atkins' rule in the North and Lynch law in the South. It will not be bribed by offers of seats in the Cabinet or the Executive.
Proscribing an organisation is of very little value in itself. That has a purpose only if it gives expression to the resolve of Government, Parliament and the nation to defeat the terrorism. We must accept, for the time being, the House of Commons' decision on capital punishment, but Parliament has a duty to ensure that alternative punishment is of equal deterrent value.
In addition to measures which will, I hope, be taken by the Government and Parliament in the United Kingdom, there must be corresponding action by the Government of the Irish Republic. On 13 July Mr. Lynch said:
There need be no doubt about the determination of the Irish Government to employ the full resources of security and of the law available to us in pursuing those who engage in this campaign of violence.
In the same speech Mr. Lynch announced that the Republic would be participating in the new EEC agreement which would allow the convention on

the suppression of terrorism to be applied between member States of the EEC. He explained in some detail that that device was necessary because the Republic could not ratify the European convention for what he called constitutional reasons. In that, however, he was mistaken.
I am aware of the many demands on Mr. Lynch's time, not least the burden of the presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers, and have devoted a little time to studying his problem. I am happy to tell Mr. Lynch that he was badly advised and that there is no real constitutional bar to the Republic's agreeing to the terms of the convention or to extradition. Article 28(3)(3) of the Republic's constitution makes special provision for measures necessary in times of national emergency—measures that, incidentally, are immune to appeal to the constitution. As a state of emergency was approved on 31 August 1976 to permit, for example, seven-day detention, the way is clear for the Dublin Government to proceed.
In our view, the threat is not merely to Northern Ireland; it is a threat to the whole of the British Isles. In so far as these two orders assist in removing that threat, we suggest that they are worthy of the approval and endorsement of the House.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Win. Ross: I believe that these orders are a further attempt to control the gunmen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, there is no doubt that they will help a little. People in Northern Ireland, however, will be wondering—and some of them have expressed their wonderment to me—that it took so long before the organisation was proscribed. One or two people have gone as far as to say that it is a method of salving the consciences of many right hon. and hon. Members because of the explosion that took place within the precincts of this Palace. That belief is more widely held in Northern Ireland than the House may wish to accept. That sort of remark has been made to me on a number of occasions, and it is not a happy situation when people in Northern Ireland are forced to think in that way.
There are various ways of controlling a geographic area. It can be done by the


military, where the Army has the freedom, manpower and firepower to move through and hold an area against armed attack. The Army is able to do that in any part of Northern Ireland. There is also the ability of the police to control the area, to issue summonses and to have those summonses executed in court. That is being done in a way that was not possible when the Conservatives last left office. At the end of the day, however, if the people living in the controlled area do not feel safe, the measures cannot be said to be effective. It is necessary completely to deny the area to the terrorist and to prevent any raid by the INLA or other terrorist organisation succeeding in its objective.
Unless one has been on guard duty, one cannot appreciate how dull and frustrating it is. It is weary work. Often those on static guard duty who only move at specific times feel themselves to be little more than targets for the gunmen. Guard duty properly carried out, however, denies the terrorist entry across the border to Northern Ireland and exit after attempting or carrying out his evil work.
I hope that the Government will not stop at tonight's order. We must remember that there is an increasing expertise and co-operation among terrorist groups outwith the United Kingdom. There are a number of pointers to the co-ordination of activities and to the way in which they obtain information.
The Minister will have seen the report in the Irish independent of 20 June, which described how two persons from the Creggan and Londonderry were remanded by the special criminal court in Dublin, charged with possession of explosives. They were members of the Provisional IRA. They had with them a number of timing devices and electric detonators. The timing devices were mercury tilt switches—an invention of the INLA which PIRA had not used widely. In this case there was co-operation and a traffic involving the weapons of murder between the two groups. That makes one wonder how far apart they are. They appear to have found a source of commercial explosives. The same men had with them 20 lb of gelatine and 15 lb of Frangex.
The commercial explosive was manufactured in the Republic. 
I have no doubt that the police, both north and south of the border, know where it was made. I hope that the Minister will bring that to the attention of Mr. Lynch so that the Garda can find out how this large quantity of explosive came into the hands of this dangerous terrorist organisation.
I turn to the question of the reorganisation of terrorist groups not only within Northern Ireland but outwith it. We know of the complete reorganisation into tight cell structures of the body that we are discussing and other terrorist organisations. They are being strengthened by an increasing number of highly skilled terrorists trained in the compounds of the Maze prison and elsewhere. In a matter of days of being released some of them reappear in County Donegal and other border counties. Their rehabilitation is not successful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many hon. Members who have been to the Maze are appalled at the training that goes on. What does the hon. Gentleman think should be done about it?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's comment is valid. The training takes place because of political status which was foolishly granted by the House. I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) voted against it.
It is clear to those who question the terrorists when they are picked up that they have been carefully lectured by people who know the law on how to behave. They know that they can be condemned and imprisoned by the statements that they make. Therefore, they keep silent. Their training in dealing with interrogation has improved vastly in the past few years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure convictions.
It is time that the House considered going further and looking again at the shortcomings in the law which will remain after the orders before us have filled one gap. For example, the 1978 principal Act makes it illegal for a person to have a radio transmitter, but it is not illegal for someone to have a radio receiver. Indeed, such a law would be unenforceable, but hon. Members may be interested to learn that some receivers are


capable of being tied in to the security forces' networks. They are widely used by members of the IRA and their sympathisers.
Then we have the situation of a group of gunmen being charged with murder or another serious crime and, when the court proceedings draw near, one admits to pulling the trigger and gets life imprisonment while the rest of the gang say that they did not knowingly consent to the act, or were acting under duress, and they get off with much lighter sentences. It is clear that there are gaps and loopholes that need to be reconsidered. Perhaps we should have a word with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who often seems prepared to accept the sort of excuses to which I have referred. I wonder why.
The gaps can best be closed not only by orders such as those before us but by providing for fairly long terms of imprisonment for membership of proscribed organisations, for selective detention and for extradition. At the end of the day, extradition is the one thing which would render so much else unnecessary.
It seems to the people of Northern Ireland that we have far too often been binding our hands in our efforts to defend life while the IRA's hands are being continually loosened and made more available for murder. It is time that we faced the facts of life and fought the war as though we meant to win it and not as though we were trying to hold a line that is continually moving.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome the orders and should like to talk about co-operation across the border. Two main issues currently bedevil Anglo-Irish relations—Britain's inability to get hold of suspected terrorists from the Republic and the general attitude of the Government in the South towards cross-border co-operation.
It is obvious that the length and nature of the border make it impossible to close it completely to unauthorised movements. That makes effective patrolling on both sides all the more important if the security forces in the North are to get on top of the IRA. In particular, the security situation in South Armagh must depend on close and effective co-operation between North and South.
There have been hundreds of reports of individuals and groups of armed terrorists escaping to the Republic after attacking British soldiers with rifles, mortars and, more recently, bombs detonated electronically from the South.
We have been told by successive Governments that co-operation is good and is improving, but I find it incredible that after 11 years of terrorist warfare in the North we have not achieved more satisfactory co-operation between North and South. After all, we are two friendly countries, both members of the EEC and both dedicated to the eradication of terrorism. I have no doubt that the Provisional IRA poses a greater threat to the Government in the South than to our Government.
It seems obvious that better arrangements could, and must, be made. I am amazed to find that each year the authorities in the South complain about over-flying by British Army helicopters. In 1974 there were 28 complaints of such incursions; in 1975, there were 19 complaints; in 1976, 22; in 1977, 10; and in 1978, eight. Surely, those silly complaints are not necessary. I do not understand why there are not direct military links between the respective military forces on either side of the border. If there is a shooting incident, the British Army has to contact the RUC which in turn contacts the Garda. Only after the Garda contacts the soldiers in the South are those soldiers allowed to take action. That is an absurd situation when a few minutes can make all the difference between catching a terrorist or not and preventing a shooting incident. It is totally unsatisfactory.
Why cannot joint patrols operate on both sides of the border? Why cannot liaison visits take place between the two armies? We are told that the constitutional arrangements of the army in the South render such proposals inconceivable, but is it not time that the Government looked at the matter again, had a stiff word with the authorities in the South and made sure that from now on we do not merely pay lip service to co-operation but achieve far more effective liaison than has existed in the past? If this does not happen, the lives of British soldiers will continue to be lost unnecessarily, and Anglo-Irish relations will continue to be bedevilled.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with regret to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I felt that he was unaware of the nature of the co-operation, the nature of the problem and the constitutional matters affecting cross-border co-operation. After the strong statements by the Secretary of State and by his counterpart in the Republic about the co-operation that exists—although no one would argue that it is perfect—the hon. Gentleman's call for a "stiff word" to be addressed to the authorities in the South, like the headmaster of a school telling a little boy to improve his conduct, is a strange way to seek such co-operation.
This is a most regrettable occasion. We are going through a ritual denunciation of a terrorist organisation. We are passing two orders that will go through the House unopposed saying that this organisation should be proscribed. What will that mean? What positive, purposeful, courageous act are we taking that will somehow weaken this terrible organisation? I put it to the House that the answer is "None at all."
I regret very much the circumstances that have led to the introduction of these orders. But what has been the effect of proscribing the Provisional IRA? Have the successes achieved against the Provisional IRA been the result of proscription? I would suggest that success has been the result of good police work, good intelligence and proper police equipment.
The Minister of State said that there were two strong reasons for introducing the order, the first being that it must not appear that the law countenanced such an organisation. Did anyone ever really think that the law countenanced an institution such as the INLA, or that, somehow, the common law of this country slapped these people on the back and said "Well done. Good lads"? Of course not. It is utter and complete rubbish. It would no more countenance them and what they are doing than it would the rapist, the burglar or the murderer.
The way in which these things are proscribed is by proscribing the nature of the action and making that a criminal offence, and not by giving the spurious glamour provided by the idea that at last

the Mother of Parliaments has realised this threat and has therefore found it necessary to proscribe the organisation.
Then we have the second argument, which is that this act of proscription will somehow weaken the structure and effectiveness of the INLA. Again, I put it to the House that that is a load of rubbish. What will weaken the organisation is the methods about which I spoke earlier. The INLA under any other name would be just as evil and just as terrorist. Merely to proscribe it again in this way, to suggest that, somehow, some weak soul will be frightened away by the action of proscription, is quite wrong.
In any event, there exists under the law at present and the emergency powers offences of collecting and subscribing to certain organisations or conspiracy to help them in this way.
That was a weak argument. What we are really saying when we proscribe the INLA is "We do not like the organisation, and the way in which we can show that we do not like it is by putting it on a list of proscribed organisations. We will put it there with the Provisional IRA and any other organisations that might come along, Perhaps, just occasionally, we might get someone on the sole charge of being a member of the INLA."
It was significant that the Minister said that this year 50 people had been charged with membership of the Provisional IRA, along with other serious crimes. What we really want to know is how many people were convicted of the crime of merely being a member of a proscribed organisation. That might put into perspective the degree to which proscription is really effective.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke about the House taking a vote on the question of political status. A vote on that matter was never taken in the House; it was a decision taken by the Secretary of State in his executive role. At the time, it was felt to be right. In the circumstances of the time, I think that it was right, against the background of the foisted charges and the indiscriminate use of internment. It was a right decision for the Secretary of State to make at that time.
The sad thing about the whole of this debate, however, was the opening statement made by the acting Leader of the


Official Unionist Party—that there will never be a political solution. He suggested that it was the Provisional IRA that had brought down the power-sharing Executive. The PIRA had its part to play. But there are hon. Members of this House who fought the general election in October 1974 not over wages policy or the question of the miners but under such posters as "Dublin is but a Sunningdale away." There are hon. Members of this House who actively encouraged the Ulster workers' stoppage. It is fair to say now that one group had egged on the other group. But for the Official Unionists to say that there can be no political solution when they have refused all the time, in a subordinate part of the United Kingdom, whether at local government or at Six Counties level, to countenance any of the types of solution that this House and succeeding Secretaries of State have advanced, is one of the major reasons why these orders are being discussed tonight.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) about the value of proscribing an organisation and the effectiveness of proscription on an organisation. I have no doubt that the abhorrence felt at having to proscribe an organisation is indicated by the fact that this is only the second such organisation to be proscribed under this legislation.
I am in no way suggesting that the Secretary of State did not have good reasons for including this organisation on the list, but I would like to ask him something that intrigues me and has mystified one or two other people. Why has the UVF, for instance, not been included? I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to go into details tonight, but I am concerned that an organisation which, according to a judge in Scotland, has wreaked such havoc and is such a dangerous organisation has not been included.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the organisation mentioned in these orders is clay the second to have been proscribed under the governing statutes. With great

respect, that is not correct. One of the two statutes is the Northern Ireland statute, and under that there are already seven proscribed organisations, including the UVF, to which he referred.

Mr. Davidson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I did not mean to give that impression. I was speaking purely on the order applying to the United Kingdom. Had I had the ability to speak as knowledgeably as the right hon. Gentleman, I would have done so. I am intrigued to know why the UVF has not been listed if it is a dangerous organisation and is responsible for acts of violence. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten me on that.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I regret the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in which he said that one act alone, namely, the killing of Airey Neave, was responsible for the orders being laid before the House. If there is to be proscription of an organisation I would hope that it would not relate only to the death of one individual. Whilst the INLA may be very small in numbers, it has been ruthless in its activities both in this part of the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pendry: When the hon. Member reads Hansard, he will find that I said exactly the opposite. Therefore, he agrees with me.

Mr. Fitt: I had taken a note that it was one act alone. It may be that that was allied to other acts committed by the INLA. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson). If there are to be proscriptions, the UVF and UDA should also be included. Those two organisations have been engaged in terrorist activity over a number of years. A judge in Scotland sentenced members of those organisations to many years of imprisonment. He invited the Government to take cognisance of his remarks and to say that the members of the organisations were engaged in the trafficking of illegal arms and explosives which were to be used in Northern Ireland. However, if we are to believe the cries of loyalists from Belfast, those arms, whether guns, rifles or explosives, were not going to be used against the security forces. They were going to be


used against the Catholic population in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the trafficking of arms over the border between the North and the South. He should also take account of what is going on between one part of the United Kingdom and another.
I would like to approach the matter from a different point of view. Name after name and sets of initials after sets of initials could be added to the proscription lists. Newly appointed Conservative Ministers will be well aware of the legion number of organisations in Northern Ireland which all claim to have been responsible for a certain act. When explosions and killings take place in Belfast, there is a mad scramble to the telephone to claim responsibility. In the case of Airey Neave, our late colleague, the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility but, immediately after that, the INLA claimed the same responsibility. When it appeared that the INLA had more claim for the credit of that dastardly act, the Provisional IRA faded from the picture because, clearly, it was telling lies.
The INLA is not an endemic Irish organisation. It has world-wide, possibly Communist or Marxist, connections, whereas the Provisional IRA is Irish-based, although it seeks outside assistance for the importation of arms and the expertise in the commission of acts of terrorism. The INLA has supporters in this country who are not Irishmen concerned for a united Ireland but people engaged in terrorism for its own sake. That sort of thing happens all over the world and it is worrying. Therefore, I am not certain whether adding this organisation to the proscribed list will be useful.
There has to be a reason for terrorism. Organisations do not spring up overnight, give themselves a set of initials and say that they will kill for killing's sake and bomb for bombing's sake. The organisations believe that their existence has some justification, whether or not we in this island or in this House believe that to be the case. The history of Ireland provides justification—I do not subscribe to it—for dastardly activities. It is said that the INLA has a small grouping in Belfast

and it is relatively unknown. Whether or not that is right, its members can kill. If we are to believe their claims, they did kill one of our late colleagues—Airey Neave.
Even that small grouping, based as it allegedly is in Divis Tower, in my constituency, could not exist unless it had the support of people who were protecting it. The Provisional IRA could not exist unless it had the support of a protective community. One must then ask whether there is a military solution. Is it possible to arrest all the Provisional IRA men and the INLA men and put them in prison? I do not think so. I have said so for year after year in debate after debate. We must look for the real reason for the existence of these organisations.
My hon. Friends will have heard the Official Unionist Members and the Democratic Unionist Members repeatedly charging me on the Floor of the House with not giving support to the RUC. They have tried to imply that in some way the reservations and suspicions that I have about some members of the RUC—I have never condemned every member of that organisation—reservations that are shared by my party and the minority population in Northern Ireland, are not genuine and sincere. Once a significant section of the population withholds support from the RUC, terrorist organisations are able to exist.
Why does the Catholic population withhold its support from what people refer to as the forces of law and order? I have already spoken to the Secretary of State—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I remind the House that this is a very narrow debate on the question whether this organisation should be proscribed. It is not a general debate on terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: I accept the restriction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if the Government are seeking to ban an organisation it is valid to ask why that organisation exists.
The only way to put such an organisation out of existence is to get the overwhelming support of the population in Northern Ireland to support the security forces. It would then not protect an organisation such as this.
There was recently a commemorative service in Belfast for RUC members who had lost their lives over the past decade. A member of the Royal Family was in attendance to unveil a plaque. A Catholic priest was there to associate himself, on behalf of the Catholic community, with the service. A few days after that service had taken place, a letter appeared in the Lurgan Mail—on 5 July 1979. It read as follows. It was a letter to the editor, and the headline was
Presence of priest was an insult'".
and it went on:
Robert J. Dodds, Sergeant, RUC, writes:
Dear Sir, As a long serving member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary I feel I must protest in the strongest possible terms at the presence of a Roman Catholic Priest at the religious Service at Police Headquarters on Friday. The presence of this representative of the Church of Rome at this service is indeed an insult to the men killed or butchered in the campaign of violence. This priest and many others have had the opportunity to speak out and take positive action against the terrorists who are in the main adherents to that faith, the church have given them Absolution, concealed them and their confessions and indeed have hidden their weapons in the grounds and buildings of the Chapels.
The next part is interesting. Hon. Members should take note of it.
The chapter and verse in Holy Scripture which would appear to be appropriate is Revelation, chapter 17, verse 6:
'And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration'.
That is a surgeon in the RUC, and the Catholic population in Northern Ireland are supposed to have faith in people like that. I understand, by the way, that he is an adherent of the Free Presbyterian Church. If that is the twisted mentality in that man's religious belief, how in the name of God can one expect the minority population to have faith in so-called supporters of the law?
I should be the last to suggest that anyone should be dismissed from any job, but that man has no right to serve—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going well outside the bounds of the debate.

Mr. Fitt: I think it appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to bring to the attention of the House the reason why there is an INLA. Let me just say this in conclusion. For years and years, at election after elec-

tion, in the party which I have the honour to represent both in Northern Ireland and in this House, we have striven to prevent the Catholic population, the minority population in Northern Ireland, from in any way giving support, overt or covert, to terrorist organisations. We have done this at considerable risk to ourselves. We have been castigated as traitors. We have been maligned as pro-British. We have been told that under cover we are in fact giving support to organisations such as the INLA and the Provisional IRA.
I am prepared to withstand criticism of that sort because in my conscience I know that I am doing no such thing. But I must say something else, in the knowledge of its seriousness, and I do so in the presence of the Secretary of State. In Belfast there are many thousands of Catholics—people who voted for me and for my colleagues in the recent elections, and people who have at all times supported those who have been opposed to violence—but there are at this moment people within the Catholic community who are saying "Perhaps the IRA have something going for them. Perhaps they are not all the time wrong. Perhaps they are something that is necessary to protect us from extremists"—extremists such as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Without in any way wishing to exacerbate an already tense situation, I must say that the attitude of the hon. Member for Antrim, North over the proposed visit of the Pope to Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fitt: —is driving people into the arms of the IRA and the INLA.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman dealt with that point the other night. It is no part of the present debate, and I hope that he will not keep referring to those matters.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot help but think that it is impossible for us merely to say that we agree with the proscription without discussing at least some of the political background of the case. It is impossible for us to debate it unless we are allowed some movement towards the political surroundings of what we are discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect, I must point out that I have allowed considerable latitude, well outside the bounds of the debate.

Mr. Fitt: I can only refer again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the restrictions on a debate such as this. We have only one and a half hours. Many Members from Northern Ireland and, I hope, many Members from other parts of the United Kingdom wish to take part.
I had already concluded what I have to say, and I have no wish to go on. There are many reasons why the adding of this name to the list of proscribed organisations will not lead to the ending of the INLA. It is the political undertones and the background to the situation in Northern Ireland which gave birth to these organisations. Unless that problem is settled, those organisations will continue to exist and continue to murder. I repeat in my concluding words that the atmosphere in Northern Ireland, because of what happened last week—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the House is sorry to learn that the hon. Gentleman is about to conclude. Before he does so, will he clear up what appears to be a contradiction? It is a contradiction that is appearing in his concluding words. He said at the beginning of his speech—with respect, he said correctly—that the INLA in Great Britain is supported by those who are concerned or interested not in what happens in Northern Ireland, or in Ireland, but in terrorism for its own sake. How can he reconcile that with the conclusion to which he is now coming?

Mr. Fitt: I am saying that those who support the INLA in England, Scotland and Wales are not interested in a united Ireland. I agree that the INLA is a small organisation, but in the island of Ireland it was formed because of the present poltical situation. I do not find that hard to explain.
In the general election 137,000 voted for SDLP candidates and 140,000 voted for our European candidate. Those electors have so far eschewed violence, but they are being driven into the camp of violence by the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

11.17 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are discussing the banning of an organisa-

tion. I have taken part in similar debates that led to the proscription of certain organisations. Let the House face the fact that while it is all very well for us to name an organisation and proscribe it, that is little help in getting to grips with its members. The debate and the proscription will be little help in bringing members of the organisation to trial.
We are told repeatedly that there are many members of the Provisional IRA on the list in Belfast. We are also told about "godfathers" of the Provisional IRA. We understand that they are known to the authorities. However, it seems that godfathers cannot be arrested and cannot be brought to court. If the Provisional IRA is a proscribed organisation and if the godfathers or the leadership are known, why can they not be brought to court and charged with membership of the Provisional IRA if proscription is an effectual instrument? I believe that it is not effectual.
I am not opposed to the proscribing of an organisation that the House, in its wisdom or otherwise, wishes to proscribe. However, let none of us think that because the order is passed we shall put any brakes on any terrorist organisations. They will continue to carry out their work. The INLA will probably glory in the fact that it is proscribed. We should be told by the Minister what effective steps can be taken under the order to deal with the membership of the INLA. When it is proscribed, its members will be violating the law because they will be members of an illegal organisation. Can they be brought to trial? Can charges against them be brought and made to stick? That is the great obstacle to making the order effective. It is useless for us to pass legislation that is not effective.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of people were charged with being members of proscribed organisations, and that 40 per cent. of those that were found guilty walked free from the court room?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am aware that non-custodial sentences were passed on 40 per cent. of those who were brought before the courts for terrorist offences and found guilty.
If any Government are to make effectual their anti-terrorist legislation,


another step must be taken. Can a person remain silent when it is put to him in a court of law "Are you or are you not a member" of a particular proscribed organisation? If he is not prepared to answer, that should be part of the case against him. My legal friends tell me that that would be a possible way of making such a law effectual.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) had many remarks to pass and he had a letter to read from a certain individual. I, too, read the press. I remember that when Her Majesty the Queen was coming to Northern Ireland the hon. Gentleman told us that she should not come—

Mr. Fitt: So did other people.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that this is a sore point with the hon. Gentleman. He said that she should not come, because if she did it would stir up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This has nothing to do with the order. May we return to it, please?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have before me a newspaper cutting that has everything to do with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He has been trying to tell the House something about the Roman Catholic population, for which he supposedly speaks. I do not believe that he speaks for the total Roman Catholic population.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should read the Belfast Telegraph.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not often read the Belfast Telegraph, because it is not an accurate newspaper. I am not a bit afraid of it, because it is a newspaper that discriminates against the Protestant people of the Province. I shall illustrate that quite simply. That newspaper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has nothing to do with the order. Will the hon. Gentleman please refer to it? Otherwise, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Fitt: Send the hon. Gentleman to Strasbourg.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are calling me to order, I think that you should also call the hon. Member for Belfast, West to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did that on two occasions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It has been alleged in the House by the hon. Gentleman—and I think that this has to do with the order, in that the order seeks to deal with civil and other commotion in connection with terrorism—that I am in some way responsible for terrorism. As he has made that accusation, I think that I am entitled to answer it.
In the Belfast News Letter today we have a challenge that the Minister had better heed. It goes right to the heart of the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. There is a certain Roman Catholic priest in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, West—I refer to Des Wilson—who—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman can relate this Roman Catholic priest to what is in the order, I shall allow him to make his point, but he must remember that other hon. Members are seeking to speak and that the debate is due to finish in about 20 minutes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall do my best to remember that, but when accusations are made in the House and I am attacked personally I think that I am entitled to reply. I am trying, within the terms of the order, to do just that. It is unfair that a Member of the House should be allowed to make wild accusations about another Member, who, when he rises to reply, finds himself unable to reply to those accusations. I know that we are limited by the terms of the order.

Mr. Fitt: Did the hon. Gentleman read what was said about him in the newspapers yesterday?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not interested in what the newspapers say about me, but I am interested in what this priest said. I am sure that the House will be interested in what his priest said, and Front Bench Members had better pay heed to what he said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If this relates to the order that we are discussing, yes. If not, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It does relate to the order, because—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do not hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom at least have some moral right to take part in this debate? After all, there has been a trial in Scotland which raised problems precisely on the order, and the judge made certain recommendations to the Government. Some of us would like to ask Ministers about this deeply serious subject, which is apposite to the order, rather than all this irrelevant feuding between Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that point of order, I should point out that this debate is due to finish in about 16 minutes and the two Front Benches would like to reply. I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will bear that in mind. We have had debates on Northern Ireland on two or three occasions this week. Other hon. Members are entitled to a hearing.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have never tried to take time from other hon. Members. Let them look at the record. The hon. Member for Belfast, West hogged almost an hour in one of the debates to which you referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are concerned with the prevention and suppression of terrorism. How are we to prevent what the hon. Member for Belfast, West calls terrorism if, as he said, the Irish Republican Army is now being looked to by the Catholic population? How will this order prevent it? This priest tells us in the local paper today that there will be a confrontation between the Pope and evangelical Protestantism and that it is important that evangelical Protestantism does not win. That gauntlet is thrown down to the Protestant people of Northern Ireland, and I am happy to take it up. Evangelical Protestantism in Ulster will win. We are not going to be put down by threats by the hon. Member for Belfast, West or anybody else.
We in Northern Ireland have a difficult terrorist problem. The House knows that Protestant paramilitary groups have committed serious crimes. I have condemned them and been condemned by them. In fact, one of them attacked my home, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West knows. It was carried in the press. I have condemned what Protestant paramilitaries have done. No one could con-

done what they have done. But the present trouble in Northern Ireland is coming not from Protestant paramilitaries but from the Provisional IRA.

Mr. Michael Mates: Not true.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give way on that point, because it has nothing to do with the order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I call attention to the fact that the House may want to know what the . Gentleman has to say about me which he is not prepared to repeat in the House. Let hon. Members read the Daily Telegraph and they will find out. We know why. It is because he went to support Republicans for a place in the Government of Northern Ireland and got short shift there.
Let me conclude—perhaps this will make you happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker—by saying that it is the Provisional IRA, the INLA, and the Republican paramilitaries who at the moment are carrying out the campaign of bloodshed in Northern Ireland. Let the House not be misled by what the hon. Member for Belfast West, has said.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think that one conclusion that we all share, probably, is that, in retrospect, it is a pity that we have taken these two orders together. We could have had more time to deal with the two rather separate things if we had taken them apart. But that is a lesson that we have learnt in the light of experience.
I want to address my remarks to the second of the orders, relating to Great Britain only and the proscription of the INLA in Great Britain. This is only the second organisation to be proscribed under the Act. The IRA was proscribed in the Act itself as long ago as 1974. No other organisation has been proscribed under the Act since then.
Therefore it is an important step that we are taking. I recall the words of Mr.


Roy Jenkins, then the Home Secretary, in November 1974, when he said:
the proscribing of named organisations is for us a wholly exceptional measure and can be justified only by a wholly exceptional situation—a clear and present danger … such as now confronts us.
We should therefore always very carefully examine any case stated for the proscription of an organisation.
Something else recognised in all parts of the House in 1974, when the parent legislation was passed, was that the proscribing of an organisation does not in itself solve any security problem. Once again, Mr. Jenkins said:
I have never claimed, and I do not claim now, that proscription of the IRA will of itself reduce terrorist outrages. But the public should no longer have to endure the affront of public demonstrations in support of that body.
There were some other references in that debate which went further and suggested that proscription might actually make the task of the police more difficult but that a balance had to be struck between that consideration and the need to avoid an affront to the public caused by the open display of support for bodies publicly committed to terrorism.
Those cautionary thoughts were then expressed on both sides of the House, and they are worth recalling now. They were expressed in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, and it is right that they should be recalled in the aftermath of the cowardly outrage of the murder of Airey Neave.
There is a danger that we shall react to such events with actions which seem to help in the fight against terrorism but which may not be as practically useful as they seem on the surface. In this difficult and dangerous field we must eschew gestures, because gestures are not only ineffective in themselves but can distract us from seeking truly effective actions.
I note that the Government made the order under what might be called the urgency procedure—that is, making the order, bringing it into effect and then submitting it to the House for approval afterwards. Therefore I ask the Minister to explain to us what the case is for making the order and for making it under the urgency procedure in practical terms.
In assessing the value of proscription, one factor—I fully accept that it is only one—is the number of prosecutions and convictions which have been brought under the proscription provision of the Act as it is. The Home Office has published figures on this, and I see that in the five-and-a-half-year period since the first Act was passed only seven people have been charged with an offence specifically arising from proscription. Of those, two were found guilty and five were acquitted. None was charged with belonging to the IRA, or with arranging or addressing a meeting. All were charged under section 1(1)(b) with soliciting or receiving money for the IRA.
It is almost certain that if that section had not existed those same people could have been charged for the same actions under section 10 of the Act, which deals with soliciting or receiving money intending it to be applied for a terrorist purpose. It looks, therefore, as if the proscription offences might not have been a significant addition to the practical armoury of society against terrorists in Great Britain. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment upon that.
My final point is that with these orders we shall have proscribed two Republican organisations but no Protestant organisation in Great Britain. I repeat that I am talking about the position in Great Britain, not that in Northern Ireland. The then Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, said in 1974 that he believed that it would prove necessary to add to the list of proscribed organisations and that he had power to do so. He said:
I shall not hesitate to use that power in what I might describe as an even-handed way. There will he no question of proceeding against one side rather than the other."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974: Vol. 882, c. 835–6: 944.]
I do not say to the Minister that, when he suggests a Catholic organisation should be proscribed, he should immediately hunt round for a Protestant one, to proscribe that as well. I realise that in Northern Ireland this imbalance does not apply. Particularly in the light of the activities in Scotland of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, as revealed in two well-publicised cases in the last few months, the Minister does need to explain why he thinks that there is a case for proscribing the INLA but not the UVF or the UDA.
In sentencing nine members of the UVF in Glasgow, the judge, Lord Ross, said recently:
No judge wishes to trespass into the political field
—I raise my eyebrows at that—
but I would suggest that Crown counsel might draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the details of this case with a view to considering whether the UVF should not be added to the list of proscribed organisations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
I am not suggesting that after such an invitation the Government should rush in and proscribe. That would be a denial of the cautious approach to proscription which I have suggested earlier. But there is cause for concern when an organisation like the UVF, whose members have been proved to have committed bombings and murderous assaults, should be left unproscribed when the House is adding new organisations to the banned list.
The sympathy of all hon. Members of this House goes out to those who have suffered from the criminal and morally degenerate activities of terrorists and, above all, to the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered them so severely and for so long. With that sympathy goes a determination to take all possible practical action to catch and keep behind bars the moral defectives who commit these atrocities. In taking such practical action the Government will have the full support of the Opposition.

11.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Britton): I deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about the urgency procedure, and why we are operating under it. It is simply so that, having reached the judgment that it is right to seek to proscribe this organisation both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do it as quickly as possible. If we had operated in the other way there would have been a delay of perhaps three weeks.
I entirely accept the philosophy generally expounded by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, which is that one should not rush into these matters and that passing orders of this kind is a serious step and should not be done as a spasm reaction but only after

the most careful consideration. It is in that spirit that we put these orders before the House. I suggest that we have to consider the circumstances in which terrorism arises. It does not mean that because, in these orders, we are not pretending to be dealing with root causes, the sort of action being taken ought not to be taken.
I do not accept the view that has been put forward that action of this kind does not put any brakes on the organisation proscribed. It is wrong, on the one hand, to pretend—and no one has so pretended—that proscription will stop the organisation dead in its tracks. On the other hand, it is equally an exaggeration in the other direction to say that it makes no difference at all. In response to what the hon. Member has said, I say that I do not believe that the extent to which a measure of this kind impedes the operation of a proscribed organisation can be gauged by the number of prosecutions that are brought. I say that because, on a purely commonsense basis, if one does not allow the organisation to operate in a public way, if one makes it an offence to collect funds for the organisation, and matters of that kind, one will at least make it more difficult for the organisation to operate.
One of the essential features for any such organisation to operate is communication and expression in a public or semipublic way. I do not believe that one can put figures to it, but I think that there is reason to believe that proscription of this kind acts, in some senses, as a brake on organisations as well as reflecting in a proper way our absolute abhorrence of what they do and the methods that they apply.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, South)rose—

Mr. Brittan: There is not time for me to give way, because I want to deal with the important point that has been made about the desirability of operating in an even-handed way in dealing with terrorist organisations, whatever their professed aims.
The fact that in Northern Ireland the list of proscribed organisations includes the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters shows that successive Governments have not been inhibited in


any way from acting against organisations that seem to merit action of this kind.
The Scottish case is a recent one, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keeping the situation under close review in the light of those prosecutions. It is also fair to point out, on a practical basis, that we have reason to believe that those prosecutions dealt a body blow to the operations of the organisations concerned, and that factor ought to be taken into consideration. There is no question of my right hon. Friend's looking at the activities of those organisations in any way differently from the way in which he has considered the organisation with which we are concerned this evening.
Reference has been made to the difficulty of proving membership of a proscribed organisation. That is a real evidential difficulty. I am not sure that there is anything that can be done that would fall short of a major alteration of the whole of our criminal procedure, with far-reaching implications in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is not something on which one would embark lightly.
I revert to the point that I made earlier. The important thing is not the number of prosecutions but the inhibiting effect of the existence of the law on the statute book. I deliberately talk in terms of the inhibiting effect rather than deter-

rent, because the people concerned are not deterred from engaging in terrorism. They are merely forced to act in a more covert way, concealing their tracks, and because of that they are not able to secure support quite as readily as they otherwise would.
For those reasons I hope that the House will be satisfied that we have not rushed into this. It has been a measured and considered judgment. We reserve the right to look at other organisations, according to how they behave and what they do—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 746), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

Resolved,
That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Amendment) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 745), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 July. he approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (IRON AND STEEL EMPLOYEES)

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I beg to move,
That the draft European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 11 July, be approved.
As the House knows, the steel industry is making determined efforts to become profitable. For that to happen it is essential that the entire industry should reach the standards of manpower productivity of our major European competitors. With that end in view, there has been an enormous amount of capital investment in the British Steel Corporation over the past few years. As a result, it will be entering the 1980s with the best technical equipment available. That is a point that the House way well wish to consider. Perhaps in our debates lately we have concentrated on the problems of the industry, but it is with that background—with the best technical equipment that is available—that we look to the 1980s for the British Steel Corporation.
Similarly, the private sector has been intent on investing in new plant to make it fully competitive in its markets. However, as the House readily appreciates, the elimination of old and obsolescent plant inevitably involves reductions in manning, and the Government are very much aware of the human implications of that situation. Indeed, it is the hardship that will result to the individual steel workers that the Government are anxious to overcome and use every means available to alleviate.
The Government regard the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme-ISERBS for short—as an important instrument for helping to reduce the grave social effect of redundancies. We are here tonight to discuss some improvements to that scheme, which will make it even better fitted to meet the needs of redundant steel workers.
The modernisation that the steel industry has undergone is vital to its future. Steel is one of the foundations of an efficient engineering industry and a product that appears in one form or

another in half of British exports. It is for these reasons that steel, together with coal, was identified as being an area in need of special post-war assistance, resulting in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. The Community exists to advance economic expansion, the growth of employment and a rising standard of living in member States, and, as the Treaty of Paris puts it, to
progressively bring about conditions which will ensure the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity while safeguarding continuity of employment ".
To that end it makes financial resources available to contribute to the costs of investment, to examine possibilities for re-employing redundant coal and steel workers and also to assist financially these workers whether unemployed, redeployed or retraining.
The United Kingdom, on accession to the Community, negotiated an agreement to take advantage of Community loans and grants for the steel industry. Tonight we are especially concerned with article 56 of the Treaty of Paris, which authorises the Community to provide non-repayable aid, matching Government-supplied funds, to redundant steel workers.
Perhaps I could be more specific. There are three main ways in which assistance has been given to redundant steel workers. First, there are tide-over payments to bring earnings in new jobs up to 90 per cent. of pre-redundancy earnings, and special unemployment benefits payable to those ex-steel workers who are unemployed. Secondly, there are payments during approved vocational training courses, by which means the often highly skilled steel worker can enter another industry equipped with new skills. Thirdly, there are travelling and resettlement grants to encourage mobility within the steel industry.
Over 33,000 steel workers, affected by about 79 closures or reductions in activity, have become eligible for assistance. Not all have needed aid, but to those who have drawn scheme benefits about £27 million has been paid over the past five years. The cost of that is borne jointly by the United Kingdom Government and the ECSC, the latter using funds that have been gathered in levies from the coal and steel industries of the member countries.
That assistance helps to smooth the path of reconstructing the industry to a modern, profitable and efficient producer that can compete effectively in world markets. Equally important, it has proved extremely valuable both by helping those steel workers who have been made redundant while they are finding other employment and by helping to provide in-house training for redeployed workers whereby they can build a new life and a new profession for themselves.
The readaptation agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission was concluded in September 1973 for an initial period of three years. It was renegotiated under the previous Administration in 1976 for an unlimited period, subject to revision if either party wished.
Amendments were made in 1976 and 1978 to bring certain benefits up to date and to introduce a more convenient method of paying training allowances. At all stages consultation with the main interested parties—the British Steel Corporation, the British Independent Steel Producers Association and the TUC steel committee—has preceded the making of regulations. Such is the case tonight.
We are seeking to consolidate the legislation and to make several amendments to the scheme. The majority of the amendments are technical alterations, which take account of changes in other legislation.
There are also some changes of substance that the Government propose, which will make the regulations more flexible and adapt them to meet the requirements of those who are in greatest need. The European Commission has already agreed in principle to the proposed changes.
Foremost among the changes is the inclusion of a ceiling on previous earnings for the purpose of calculating benefits. This will have the effect of placing a limit on payments to previously highly paid steel industry employees. We propose to base this on twice the limit imposed under the Employment Protection Act provision for an earnings-related lump sum payment to all redundant workers. This will provide for a ceiling of £11,400 per annum.
The amendments also update rates that have not kept up with inflation. Under

the scheme, those who remained unemployed after exhausting their national insurance earnings-related supplement received a flat-rate special unemployment benefit for up to 52 weeks. The rate was set at £5 in 1973 and was increased to £9 in 1976. These levels were approximately the amount of earnings-related supplement payable to an unemployed man with average steel workers' earnings. We propose to introduce an automatic adjustment to this rate of benefit in line with future changes in the earnings-related supplement.
The scheme rate is to be set at 90 per cent. of the maximum weekly rate of the earnings-related supplement. On that basis the new rate will be £14·50.
The final amendment of substance involves a minor adjustment to the terms of eligibility for resettlement and removal grants in order to avoid the necessity of calculating in detail the differences in relevant costs of the old employment against those of the new when contributing to the costs associated with transfer to other work with the same steel company.
The aim of the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme continues to be to help to reduce the grave social effects of redundancies which are an unfortunate corollary of the necessary modernisation of the steel industry. By encouraging the movement of labour into new skills, new industries and different regions, the scheme will help to increase competitiveness and efficiency and, in a humane way, help with the problems that face this great industry. I commend the regulations to the House.

11.54 p.m.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the introduction that the Under-Secretary of State has given the document. It is as well that we do not follow the procedure in the United States and have speeches read into the record, because the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been longer, since the document runs to 15 closely written pages. It is a complicated document. I do not pretend that I understand every aspect of it. The Under-Secretary would not pretend that he did, either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and I would like to ask the Minister some detailed questions. We


do not share the Minister's view of the way in which the steel industry has been treated by the Government. I shall restrict myself to saying that the handling of the situation at Shotton was not an auspicious beginning for the new incumbents at the Department of Industry.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): How different is it from the handling by the BSC of matters at Corby?

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State knows that the handling of the situation at Corby was dealt with under a procedure in which the steel committee of the TUC and the unions involved agreed to discuss the rundown with the BSC. That was not in breach of a pledge given by the chairman of the BSC or the Secretary of State for Industry, as is the case at Shotton. There are substantial differences in the handling of the situations at Shotton and Corby.
However, I agree with the Under-Secretary's views of the great social consequences of the rundown of industries. Those of my hon. Friends who, like me, represent constituencies with coal and steel interests know only too well the devastating effects of rundowns and closures not only on individual families but on whole communities.
I predict that the Government will face considerable opposition not only from the steel unions but from their political friends in the county and district councils in the Shotton area who are finding that the cuts in public expenditure which they happily supported during the general election campaign are a different matter when they come home to roost in their areas.
I understood the Under-Secretary to say that the proposed amendments to the regulations were all aimed at improving their impact on workers. May we have a categorical assurance that none of the changes will leave any worker in the industry worse off?
Regulation 3 deals with the current earnings payment made under the scheme to bring the current earnings of an eligible steel employee to 90 per cent. of his previous earnings, which are defined as the average of his weekly earnings from employment by a steel company for a period of 13 weeks immediately preced-

ing the fourth week before the relevant date. The problem is that that provision disregards the current value of previous earnings. How is that dealt with in the regulations?
There are a number of other matters that I should like to put to the Under-Secretary, but in order to facilitate the business of the House I shall defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, who has major steel interests in his constituency and is associated with the unions involved.
Subject to the answers that my hon. Friend receives from the Minister, and subject to our receiving an assurance that no worker will be worse off as a result of the amendments, we shall be happy to see the regulations proceed.

12 midnight

Mr. Donald Coleman: I declare an interest. I am sponsored by my union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the principal trade union in the steel industry. I wish to raise some matters of concern to fellow members of my union, among them a number of my constituents who were affected by the closure of the Briton Ferry steelworks, which was in the private sector of the industry, in the latter part of 1978.
More emphasis on one matter that has already been raised would not come amiss. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the regulations is concerned with supplementation of current earnings and refers to the weekly payments under the scheme to bring the current earnings of eligible steel employees up to 90 per cent. of previous earnings. Previous earnings are defined as the average of the employee's weekly earnings from employment by a steel company for a period of 13 weeks immediately preceding the fourth week before the relevant date.
The definition disregards the current value of previous earnings. If a steel worker is redeployed or made redundant in the last week of December and there is a 10 per cent. increase in the rates on the following 1 January, that steel worker will be in receipt of only 80 per cent. of the current value of his previous earnings. On the other hand, a working colleague who became redundant or was redeployed some 17 weeks after 1 January would be in receipt of 90 per cent. of his improved earnings. That


is a 10 per cent. differential between identical workers.
Three years ago, my union asked the then Labour Minister to provide for cost of living adjustments to the ISERBS—the Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme—payments. This he did. Regulation 12 gives the Secretary of State discretion to increase the weekly payments as he may think appropriate to take account of changes in the cost of living. But such increases can only occur in the second 52 weeks of payments. For the first year, the differential exists.
In addition to what has been done, my union would like to see the definition of previous earnings extended to include any subsequent increases in the monetary value of the previous work performed which would have occurred if the worker had continued in that form of occupation. I ask the Minister to take this matter on board.
A further matter of concern to my union and its members, particularly those involved with these problems, concerns the effect of British legislation on unemployment benefit. Our legislation does not permit the payment of unemployment benefit to people who go on holiday outside Britain. The iron and steel readaptation benefits are linked with unemployment benefits. It follows that the same prohibition applies to both benefits. This results in cases of extreme discrimination within the EEC.
For instance, German, Belgian, Dutch or French steel workers on holiday in Britain receive their full entitlement to readaptation benefits provided by the ECSC treaty, but a redundant British steel worker on holiday in any other EEC country is denied his readaptation benefits.
My union maintains that workers in receipt of ISERBS benefits have a right to them under the Treaty of Paris, wherever they may be within the EEC. We shall if necessary be prepared to take this matter to the European Court of Justice, but we hope that the Government will see the justice of this and will rectify this serious discrepancy and reimburse the very small number of people who have suffered financially from the

operation of the present regulations in respect of unemployment benefit.
My last point concerns the somewhat lethargic way in which the agency office in Sheffield makes these payments to those who are entitled to receive them. I have heard and had a number of complaints from constituents of mine who were employed at the Briton Ferry steelworks about the delays that are taking place. These delays are often the cause of hardship. They are certainly the cause of much annoyance.
I hope that what I have said during this debate about these delays will penetrate as far as Sheffield and that the people concerned will understand that they have a responsibility to the people who have been declared redundant in the steel industry.
These regulations are necessary, and they will become the more so in the light of the present Government's antipathy towards the British steel industry, as I fear that there will be many more British steel workers who will have recourse to them in the future.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) raised a general question on which I should like to give some assurance. He really asked whether I could say to the House that no one would be worse off under the amendments proposed by the regulations before us tonight. I can give the hon. Member that broad assurance. The one category that I spelt out quite clearly was the higher-paid employees, where the ceiling, in effect, is £11,400. I think that the hon. Member will realise that there must be some reasonable cut-off point in this matter and that that figure is very much in line with the general level in the European Community of other steelmaking nations.
As for the hon. Member's question on previous earnings, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) also referred, it is correct to say that the provision for a cost-of-living increase is one year after redundancy. I took on board what the hon.
Member for Neath had to say on that point.
I turn briefly to what the hon. Member for Neath said. I am sure that many hon. Members in all parts of the House would join me in saying that we are delighted to have the chance to hear the hon. Member breaking his vow of silence, because we appreciate that his other responsibility has curtailed his activities. We know of his longstanding connection with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. I think that tonight the hon. Member gave a good example of the way in which he is able to bat on its behalf.
Having said that, I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that what he has raised are a number of detailed points going outside the regulations as amended tonight. But I shall look at them. I undertake to write to the hon. Member. I know that he will also appreciate—this is meant in the friendliest spirit—that having reached agreement with his union within the context of the consultations that have gone into these regulations, it is not proper for me to open up negotiations across the Floor of the House with him. However, I shall look at the points that he made about the differential pay in the first year and what he described as holiday pay discrimination.

Dr. John Cunningham: I understand that the hon. Gentleman cannot reply to the detailed questions tonight. We make no complaint about that. But can he give us some guidance on the way that the Government feel about the matter of principle that my hon. Friend raised? If people are entitled to these payments as part of our membership of the EEC, ought this not to be put right? Could the hon. Gentleman not give us at least that general assurance?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Whitehaven, in his usual tempting way, wants to reduce this to a simple matter. It is a much more complex matter because of the interrelationship between the domestic benefit, the Community benefit and the balance between the two. We need to look at this with much more care. I will do so and let him have a copy of my findings, having had this exchange tonight.
I recognise that delay in payment has been a problem, particularly in respect of the closure of private sector steel companies. The difficulty is—I, too, am aware of it from constituency cases—that we are talking about an intermix between Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Rome products. Tonight we are speaking about the Treaty of Paris, which concerns essentially the heavy end of the steel industry and which relates much more to the British Steel Corporation than to the private sector. Given that the Commission has to reach a view on these applications to meet roughly half the cost of United Kingdom expenditure, it has to look into each case. There are difficulties, in that steel companies vary in the amount of notice that they give to the Commission. I understand what the hon. Gentleman said and am anxious to do what I can to maintain pressure for prompt settlement, but there are special difficulties there.
I will revert in a little more detail to what the hon. Member for Neath asked about the previous earnings definition. The object of the scheme is to protect the redundant steel worker's actual lost earnings, not some theoretical amount he might have earned had he remained in steel employment. It would be administratively difficult and costly, and it would delay payments, if the hypothetical earnings of all workers had to be followed up. That is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's basic question.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Whitehaven sees the importance of these measures. I hope, however, that on reflection he will realise that he is striking a somewhat sour note in suggesting that the Government are not fully aware of the need to use every possible opportunity to overcome the problems of steel closure. He tried to make out that there was a special situation over Shotton. He knows perfectly well that the situation at Shotton is precisely the same as it is at Corby. The type of consultations which began in February on the possibility of closure at Corby have begun at Shotton. The cash limits for the BSC are precisely the same this year as those imposed by the previous Government.
We hope very much that there will be a satisfactory outcome to these consultations, but we are in the process of consultation between the BSC and the


steel trade unions, in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, it does not help for any of us to shoot off our mouths too wildly. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is one of the more sensible figures on these matters, but I appeal to him to think carefully, because this will be a matter of great difficulty both to the BSC and to steel trade unions. They need all the help and understanding that they can get. That is why I urge the hon. Gentleman to think long and hard. I do not believe that there is any way in which this matter will be resolved in this place; it will be resolved elsewhere.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for giving way. I do not want to delay the proceedings, except to say that there is a fundamental difference between us on this matter, and no doubt at a more appropriate time we shall return to it.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself about the difference. I find it hard to see. These regulations are an essential part of the way in which each and every situation must be looked at on its merits. We must seek to do what we can to help in this difficult shift.
I said at the beginning that the industry is geared with new plant to move into the 1980s. What has been said tonight ignores the progression of closure, which was an inevitable part of securing viability for steel under the previous Gov-

ernment. All these matters were foreshadowed, and we are nearing the end of the line of those closures. While that remains the position, the regulations are important and we are right to commend them to the House. We shall examine in detail the matters that have been raised. I am glad to see that a number of hon. Members with an interest in steel have taken an interest in the debate. These occasions are useful to help us to understand the problems and the opportunities that are open to the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hills. borough): It is a complicated document. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can clear up a point for me. If a worker leaves one works, for whatever reason, and goes to another but works for less than 52 weeks at the new firm before he becomes unemployed, how will matters affect him?

Mr. Marshall: I should like to take further advice on that matter. The thrust of the regulations essentially relates to a worker moving within the steel company within the 52-week provision. However, I will examine the point and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 11 July, be approved.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (BORROWING POWERS)

12.16 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the draft British Railways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to raise the ceiling on the total borrowing of the British Railways Board from £600 million, the level set by the Railways Act 1974, to £900 million. That represents a total aggregate indebtedness of the sort that the Railways Board incurs in the course of investing in parts of its activities. I assure the House that the order is not a symptom of any sudden worsening in the Board's financial position. We do not expect there to be any increase in the rate of its indebtedness. The order is designed to bring in line the overall limit on the aggregate indebtedness of the Board with the rate of inflation in recent years and to raise it to a more realistic modern limit.
The Board's total indebtedness has been increasing gradually since 1974 and it now approaches the £600 million ceiling. However, it has been increasing at less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, in real terms it has been falling. The 1974 ceiling corresponds to a £1,200 million ceiling at present-day prices. The order raises the ceiling to the maximum that is permitted by the Act. The indebtedness is incurred by the Board in the course of its operations as part of its continuing investment programme. The Board has a large capital investment programme to finance, much of which is in passenger services. Some parts of the system are eligible for public service obligation grant. The grant includes depreciation grant on capital assets and a special replacement towards the difference between the historic cost of assets and assets replaced at present-day costs. Much of the Board's infrastructure investment in track, signalling and so on is charged direct to revenue grant and is thus eligible for grant support.
Parts of the Board's operations are financed following its commercial remit, for example, the non-passenger freight business. It has long been the practice

that that business should be run on commercial lines. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Board to be paid grant in respect of investment in that part of the business. In so far as investment cannot be financed out of internal resources—profits, depreciation charge and so on—finance must be raised by borrowing. That is the sort of borrowing that is incurred by the Board which gives rise for the limit to be set and to be raised at times in line with inflation. It would be worrying if the Board's borrowing were to increase in real terms with the corresponding increase in interest charges to be borne by the business. However, the overall borrowings have been falling in real terms. The increase in the money value of the borrowings reflects the increase in the value of the assets.
The borrowing ceiling applies to the Board's aggregate indebtedness, regardless of when the loans concerned were taken out. Therefore, it is an ongoing, cumulative sum, which will inevitably rise as inflation takes up the real value of the Board's assets which are being financed. On the other hand, the cash limit is an annual control and covers not only borrowing but also grants. It is only the net increase in the Board's borrowing in the year concerned that counts against the cash limit. In other words, the cash limit is a control on the rate of increase of indebtedness. The making of the present order does not imply any breach of the cash limit in the light of the recent modest cut in that limit that was imposed by the Government as part of the transport contribution to the present review of cuts in public spending.
If the Board were to borrow this year to the full extent implied by the recently revised cash limit, that would be sufficient to take it over the existing £600 million ceiling. Obviously that would be undesirable, and it is obviously desirable that we should move the limit to the full extent allowed by the 1974 legislation on which the order is based.
It is the Government's policy that nationalised industries should keep their requirements for external finance within the cash limits that have been set, but, equally, we are not seeking to prevent new borrowing to finance worthwhile investment within the discipline of cash limits. We accept that at the moment various problems face the Board, which require


substantial investment in the business. We also believe that the present situation—certainly in the light of the recent increases in fuel prices and so on—gives the Board a considerable opportunity to improve its business and attract extra traffic, and it needs extra investment for that purpose. We entirely accept the need for investment, and this order is quite consistent with the investment it needs. The Government have not at the moment touched its investment limits, and the order is necessary if it is to invest even within the limits of the present cash limits.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Minister clarify for us the type of investment he has in mind?

Mr. Clarke: British Rail has obviously indicated to us the scale of the investment that it requires. We are currently reviewing that, and in due course we shall reach conclusions with the Board. But the investment limits laid down by British Rail have not been touched by the Government, and they continue at the present level.
There is one matter that I know the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will raise if I do not, and which he will no doubt raise in any event when he speaks. One feature of the long-term investment plans of the British Railways Board is the question of the electrification of a substantially increased part of the network. Every time we have a debate about British Rail this matter is, quite properly, raised. I have to repeat that the Government are waiting for the studies of the working party that is set up between the Department and the Board
However, things are moving on. I can tell the House that the working party's interim report has now been received by Ministers and by the chairman of the Board. They are considering the report and its publication, which will take place this summer. Although I cannot give a precise date, I can say that it will be weeks rather than months before it is available to the general public and, of course, hon. Members. A statement will be made at the same time as publication, and that will advance consideration of the long-term electrification plans for the network which British Rail is anxious to pursue.
Probably, eventual and long-term decisions will have to await the full report of the working party, which we hope to have by the end of this year. That will be the next stage in revealing the Board's hopes and the initial judgments of the working party on the problems. Everyone will then be able to see what the Government and the Board are considering and what we decide on the long-term investment programme.
I shall, with leave of the House, answer later any wider points that hon. Members may wish to raise. At this stage I have confined myself to dealing with the technical aspects of the order. It is a technical order but an essential one. It is obviously important that we raise the limits on aggregate indebtedness to enable British Rail to finance its business in the proper way and take advantage of the cash limits it has been allowed for this year.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: The Parliamentary Secretary has given an excellent explanation of the technical mechanism by which the borrowing powers provision fits into the financial arrangements of British Rail, but a number of hon. Members who have come here at this hour because of their interest in these matters have come not to enlighten themselves on the technical mechanism but to learn of the real significance for its investment programme of British Rail's ability to raise its borrowing power from £600 million to £900 million and to hear something of the Government's thinking and policy in relation to British Rail's investment programme, which is an issue of crucial importance at this time.
The Minister very fairly offered to answer questions on other matters, but it would have been helpful at the start of the debate to have at least a broad indication of the implications for the investment programme of a 50 per cent. increase in borrowing limits. Indeed, the justification for the order requires that the House shall know why British Rail's borrowing power is being raised by that amount.
That information has not been given, but it is necessary that we have it because what is known as investment in British Railways is what is often known in other


industries as replacement and maintenance. What British Rail calls its investment programme is to the extent of about 90 per cent, what would be called replacement or maintenance in other industries, and at this juncture it has assumed enormous proportions for British Rail's finance.
Over the next few years, even if British Rail were not to carry out any new developments at all but merely maintained the existing network and services, it would have to undertake considerable expenditure. Of the fleet of over 10,000 diesel and electric multiple-unit vehicles, 98 per cent. of the diesels are already over 15 years old, clapped-out, and 66 per cent. of the electrics are already past that age They will have to be replaced, or some change will have to be made in the rolling stock arrangements for the lines which they serve, out of what is called in British Rail's financial parlance its investment programme. For that alone, and doing nothing else, it would have to have a 30 per cent. increase in its current level of investment.
The House will therefore wish to know how far the Parliamentary Secretary sees this increase as being absorbed in that way and how much he sees as being left for other developments. It is impossible for us to calculate or deduce from the order or from what the hon. Gentleman said the extent to which British Rail will be able to make any new developments at all. We do not know the time scale over which this borrowing limit is to operate. Over a long enough time, it might not even be possible to finance the existing scale of operations within such arrangements. So this matter must be placed within the context of that method of finance being used by British Rail.
Moreover, given that sort of replacement requirement, as I call it, though I accept the Minister's term "investment programme" because it is technically correct within British Rail report terms, it will be necessary to have a clear indication of how this can be carried out over the next five years or so. What is the time scale? We cannot organise the efficient use of British Rail's workshops or the development of British Rail's capacity to service its own system unless it knows over a reasonable time scale what money will be available within the part of its programme named investment.
I accept that it is technically correct to say that the cut in the cash limit upon which the Government decided does not necessarily affect the investment programme, but if the investment programme is unaffected it must mean that the other port of the programme that must have a bearing on the level of service is to be reduced in the period that we are discussing.
It will help the House to know whether the increase in borrowing powers of about £300 million is expected to deal with the part of the capital programme of British Rail that is clearly necessary, namely, the terrible inadequacy of services to rural areas. I quarrel with some of the parlance that is used. Having read some of the dissertations on British Rail's network, one would imagine that anything not an inter-city express line was a rural service. If that is so, a number of industrial towns and centres are dependent for rail links on rural services. They include Barrow-in-Furness, in my constituency, on the Preston line, and much more so further north—for example, Workington and Whitehaven up to Carlisle. These are lines that are largely served by the multiple units that are now desperately overdue for replacement.
The Minister has anticipated fairly and correctly a concern of the House in considering an extension of borrowing powers. The hon. Gentleman has referred to his expectation of questions about investment in electrification. Bearing in mind the current oil shortage and the discussions that are taking place in the EEC, in Britain and in many other countries about how major industrial nations can cope with less oil at much higher prices, a major strategic decision is needed on electrification. Only 21 per cent. of British Rail's network is electrified, much less than in most developed countries with national rail systems. No doubt that is so for good historic reasons, but that is the position. By that token have much greater scope to make an enormous saving on oil by developing a good and large electrified system. The House would benefit if the hon. Gentleman gave us a little more information about the joint report.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the joint report of his Department and British Rail. It is in the hands of the


Minister and the chairman of British Rail. However, this is not a cosy club business it is a major matter of political interest and public policy. As public representatives elected to the House, we would appreciate an opportunity to study the report.
I understand that the Minister might want to take time to study the report. I also understand that it might suit his interests not to publish the report until he has formed a view that he wants to put before the House. However, the nature of the problem is such and the implications are of such importance—they go wider than immediate British transport financial considerations—that we should have a public debate on the issue and consider the issue carefully throughout the Summer Recess that we are soon to enter. We should consider its implications for the environment, for the maintenance of essential transport links with a number of industrial centres as well as the maintenance of rural services and how in the longer time it can fit in with a sensible fuel strategy through a decade or two decades of oil shortage.
I am sure that the Minister understands—I should be insulting his intelligence if I did not so credit him—that the factors surrounding the major decision to go for large-scale electrification are not ones that the British Railways Board can decide on its own. The factors that it will have to take into account in coming to that decision are very much within the scope of Government policy. It will have to have Government guidance, to put it no higher.
The railways are at present using 800,000 tons of fuel oil a year. We do not yet know, because we have not seen the report, what options it suggests for savings. But, to judge from some of the submissions made to the Ministry in earlier studies, that figure of 800,000 tons could be reduced to a small fraction—probably even to 100,000 tons—by a full-scale electrification programme. Therefore, it is certainly a major issue. I know of no other industry that promises such a potential oil saving.
The order has a wider significance for British Rail. In addition to the matters that I have mentioned, there are no doubt other issues that hon. Members will raise tonight. There are enormous bene-

fits to be gained—benefits in the service to the travelling public, to the performance of the whole system, fuel saving and a number of other advantages. In order to secure them, British Rail requires a commitment by the Government to sustaining a sensible and continuing role for our railway network within our transport system.
I think that it is proper on an order of this scope for the Minister to indicate how the network fits into the sort of investment programme that can make that contribution. I hope that he will do so.

12.37 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: In his helpful but complex statement, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did not succeed in enlightening me, at all events, on a subject that he knows is of particular interest to me—the possibility that British Rail may before long announce the completion of negotiations with the French railway system for the building of a link between the two across the Channel.
I wonder whether the increase in British Rail's borrowing powers has anything to do with the discussions that we believe have been going on, and that appear to be achieving success, or whether it relates purely to plans within this country. If I am right in guessing that this increase of £300 million makes no provision for the possibility of a Channel link, will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps might be necessary to provide finance for that project?
Many people would welcome Government support for the project, support which might fruitfully be voiced at this time. But we need to see the matter in the context of the national investment programme and to have a clear idea of the sort of money that is likely to be involved and when it may be required to be spent.
I presume that the order refers to Britsh Rail's borrowings within the context of the Transport Act 1962, which presumably never envisaged the availability of loans from the European Investment Bank or other sources of finance that did not exist at the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be ready to give at any rate some hints about the Government's attitude to the possibility that loans


for the Channel link might be raised by reference to the powers of the European Investment Bank, or possibly even on the open capital market, to some extent.
These are points that I think it is proper to raise in the debate on this borrowing powers order. I hope that we may be enlightened by my hon. Friend as to his thinking and the trend of the Government's thinking on that important project.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Peter Snape: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but, having heard the Minister's full explanation of the order and having listened to the coherent reply by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), I should like to make two points.
The first and most obvious concerns electrification. I do not want to repeat what I said in the Adjournment debate to which the Minister replied a few weeks ago. However, I hope that he will consider the necessity for a quick and urgent decision on the study group's interim report on the future electrification of the railways.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about his desire that, as soon as Ministers and other interested bodies have studied the interim report, it should be published so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to study its findings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to listen to the views of at least one railway union on electrification.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, I am concerned about the future not only of the main lines but of rural and commuter lines into and out of our major towns and cities. The British Railways Board, because of the commercial remit under which it has to operate, is somewhat obsessed with its inter-city services—that is understandable, because they are the profit-making lines—and is apt to neglect or, at best, to forget the necessity to convey commuters into and out of our major towns and cities.
Conservative Ministers seem to regard the commuter problem as applying exclusively to London and the South-East. That is not so. The commuter problem in many of our towns and cities is apt to be

overlooked. Some Conservative Members complain about the standard of service on the Southern Region. In view of the rolling stock available and the fact that the peaks on the Southern region are virtually confined to three hours out of 24 hours, commuters in that region do better than some hon. Members give the railways credit for and certainly much better than commuters travelling to and from other major cities.
It says a great deal for the foresight of the former directors of the old Southern Railway that in the 1930s the greater part of that railway was electrified and the more intensively used lines were lit by multiple-aspect coloured light signals well before the Second World War. It is difficult to demand that the British Railways Board should replace those admittedly outdated signalling systems in the late 1970s when it still has a great problem in replacing semaphore signals installed at the turn of the century on lines into and out of our major cities. I think that some credit should be given to the management and unions for the efforts that they have made to help commuters in London and the South-East.
Again, on the vexed question of investment, there are problems not only on commuter lines but on main lines. I hope that some of the funds being made available will be used in other directions on other main lines.
A programme has been started to improve the quality of service on the East Coast main line between King's Cross and Edinburgh. If British Rail is to compete for passenger traffic on its inter-city network, it must be able to rival its competitors.
The line between Euston and Birmingham was electrified and modernised in the mid- to late 1960s, but problems remain—a legacy, perhaps, of the old London and North Western Railway days—and it will take a large amount of money to resolve them. They will not be resolved overnight.
For example, there is the first of the major electrified lines, that between Euston and Liverpool and Manchester. We can have a train that will travel as fast as it is conceivable to build one, but there is the bottleneck at Crewe through which a train cannot travel at more than 20 miles an hour. Even the advanced passenger train, no matter how far it


leans on the curves, will hardly break any records—certainly not if the comfort of the passengers is to be maintained. Unless there is considerable investment in the Crewe area, that bottleneck will remain.
One must bear in mind also that the airlines are anxious—justifiably, I suppose—to attract traffic between London and Liverpool and Manchester. That in itself is indicative of the fact that greater investment is required in the railways, not only for rural and branch lines, not only in London and the South-East, but in many of our main lines, even some of those modernised as recently as 12 or 13 years ago.
The dilemma will not be resolved overnight under any Government, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that it is a problem that should be looked at. There are various other lines in the United Kingdom where the passenger-carrying potential is immense, but the potential will not be realised unless the vexed question of investment is resolved.
It is not merely a question, on any line, of freezing fares and attracting more passengers. More aspects of the package have to be put before the travelling public before we can convince them that the railway is indeed the right way—for example, cleanliness and reliability of service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that since Sir Peter Parker became chairman of the British Railways Board there has been an improvement in both. There has certainly been an improvement in the morale of the railwaymen.
We have had peaks and troughs on many occasions in the history of the railways, both before nationalisation and since. If there is to be an improvement in morale and service, if the cutting edge of quality is to be refined and honed, there must be greater investment of public funds. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Ministry is prepared to look sympathetically at some of these factors.
The energy crisis will not go away. I think that Ministers are perhaps apt to take a short-term view of many of these problems, that they are apt to say "For the next 12 months perhaps there are no more ayatollahs on the horizon and things might improve". But they cannot

guarantee that. No one can guarantee that the situation will improve.
If we are to have a better railway in the long term we need more investment in the short term, and if the progress that has been made under the Labour Government and Sir Peter Parker is to be maintained, the railways need Government support. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind. The railways do not get the support that their main competitors, the road hauliers, in particular in the private sector, are given. Those competitors have the privilege of using public funds without, in many cases, making an adequate contribution towards them.
Those of us who have worked on the railways hope that the improvement that we have seen over the past few years wit' be maintained in the future.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I support the order, but while so many people are keen on talking about the need for a Channel tunnel or bridge, I can never see the justification for such a project when hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent upon an excellent service which will get one over there on a much better schedule than British Rail will ever be able to put up.
The question is whether we are going to spend this money wisely. People say that British Rail is obsessed with the inter-city services. I have travelled on quite a few British Rail "obsessive" services. The only thing that it seems obsessed with is telling the passenger that the journey will take 1 hour and 40 minutes when we all know that it will take 2 hours 20 minutes, if we are lucky and the wind is with us.
I hope that we are to do something about inter-city services. The one between Birmingham and London produces so many complaints, addressed to me, that it might be thought that I run British Rail. If a train is half an hour late, I believe that that is worth a congratulatory walk to the engine driver to say "Well done, we are on time." If British Rail insists on running a service, why cannot it at least say that it will be half an hour late? If it wants to encourage the use of the railway service, the


trains should run on time. The intercity services should be paying. They are often packed—so much so that one is sometimes lucky to get a seat, about which I do not complain. I would rather see the service well used. Let us see the services properly run, properly manned and on time. In that way we shall encourage people to use the railway, which we all want them to do.

Mr. Snape: Both the hon. Member and I use the same service. Is he aware that the punctuality rate on the Euston-Birmingham service averages 90 per cent.—that is, 90 per cent. of trains arrive on time or within five minutes of booked time? Does he realise that it is difficult for railway staff to disseminate information in the event of a delay when they are confined to the delayed train? It the service is so bad, how is it that the hon. Member has sold his Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is obvious that British Rail sees me coming and decides that my trains are to be late. Figures are supposed not to be able to lie. The most important thing is to judge these matters for oneself. I have travelled on that service for many years, at least two or three times a week. Now it is often more frequently than that. The service has more often been late than not. I do not believe the statistics handed round. It is kind of the hon. Member to take an interest in my Rolls. I have sold it because, even on what we are supposed to get, I still find it difficult to run a bicycle.
Let us see this money in question used properly. Let it be used in improving those services which pay. In that way there will be money available to provide the other necessary services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: By leave of the House, I begin by saying that I trust that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) realised why my opening remarks were fairly technical. I had to put on record the basis of the order. Plainly it is right that there should be a wide debate, as there has been. Before it began I had no idea whether the subject of the Channel tunnel or the Woodhead tunnel would be rised by hon. Members. It seemed more appropriate to wait and see what was to be canvassed and then reply to the debate.
This order has no effect on the investment programme. I will not repeat my earlier remarks, except to say that all we are doing is revaluing the limit on the aggregate indebtedness of the Board in line with inflation. That would have had to be done, whatever the investment programme was this year. It is a fairly technical matter.
Within the borrowing limit is the investment programme. Like all nationalised industries, British Rail works within an investment ceiling, set annually by the Government as part of their public expenditure review. British Rail's investment ceiling was set by the previous Government. That remains the investment ceiling. We have not changed it. It is £326 million in 1978 survey prices, which is about £370 million in 1979 prices. The previous Government set that as a static level for the next five years. We have not touched it. Obviously the Government are reviewing the investment ceiling of British Rail, as they review that of every nationalised industry, as part of the PESC review.
This is not the stage of the year at which Governments come to conclusions as part of the annual review, but we shall in due course, and fairly soon we shall reveal the future investment ceiling and any alterations, if any are to be made. So far we are acting within the investment ceilings set down by the previous Government, and there need be no alarm on that score.
The Government accept the need for continuing investment. Investment in this business, as in any other, involves, to a large extent, replacement of old capital stock, and so on. One also appreciates that British Rail faces special problems if it is to maintain the level of service that is required and, indeed, to achieve it in those areas where it is not giving satisfaction at the moment.
British Rail has particular problems because, for instance, there was such a peak of investment in the 1950s and early 1960s that there is now a lot of stock that is getting out of date all at once and has to be replaced. However, we have to make sure that it is replaced in such a way that fresh investment peaks are not created for the future by a sudden rush of replacements now. Also, one needs to have the ordinary investment in the


modernisation of the service and in new and improved services, and that leads one on to electrification, the Channel tunnel and so on. Those are all matters that have to be borne in mind in all working within the investment ceiling.
British Rail, both now and in the future, will not work within investment ceilings that will constrain excessively the ability of the Board to take advantage of the opportunities that it has because of the change in petrol prices, which has improved the Board's competitive position, and in the Government's opinion the present investment ceilings are not imposing any real restraint.
One has only to look at what is being achieved by British Rail by way of investment at the moment to realise that. The high-speed train project has been brought along by heavy investment in the rail system. There are already 27 of them on the London-Bristol route, 32 have just come into service on the East Coast main line and more are planned for the London-Edinburgh and London-West of England routes.
Again, commuter services are not being left out of the investment programme, nor will they be so. Electrification of the Great Northern route into London has gone ahead, and electrification of the London, St. Pancras-Bedford route is proceeding. There is substantial investment in new electrical multiple units for the Southern Region—250 of them are being ordered. There is a substantial refurbishment programme for the existing electrical multiple units to extend their useful life and to improve the cleanliness and suitability of the stock for passengers. On the freight side, 30 locomotives and 1,000 airbrake wagons are being produced, and a rolling programme has been authorised for 25 locomotives and 1,550 wagons.
Furthermore in response to the energy crisis more coal traffic will have to be carried by the railways to the power stations. Arrangements are in hand to invest in new rolling stock to cover that. There already were arrangements for new merry-go-round stock for that traffic. In fact, additional arrangements are now in hand by the Board to invest in stock for that purpose.
All these investment decisions are, of course, taken by the Board according to

the remit within which it operates, and it is entirely for the Board to make its management decisions on where this investment is best placed. The Government's role is to consider what is the proper ceiling within which to set some restraints on the Board's ability to invest at any one time.
This is a nationalised industry, and one of the difficulties that nationalised industries face is that it is impossible for them to operate without the Government—any Government—having to take a view on the overall extent of the investment in them. Obviously Labour Members will not complain about the fact that that restraint is inevitable in the relationship between a nationalised industry and the Government.
The present position is not one of a network being allowed to go to waste. It is not one where the investment needs are being neglected. It is not one where the investment ceilings that we have inherited have so far been touched. In reviewing those ceilings the Government are anxious to make sure that the railways are put in the best position to take advantage of their competitive position, to get a proper return on their freight services and their inter-city services, which we believe should pay and make a contribution to the financing of the business, and to operate their rural and other services within the level of PSO grant, and so on, which the Government accept they have to pay to maintain less profitable services for social reasons where the Government and the public so decide. With that background, hon. Members need not fear that there is any lack of scope for investment to improve and maintain the service.
Electrification is probably the biggest single issue but by no means the only one that we have to consider concerning the investment needs of the railways. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly pressed for the maximum information on electrification. There was no commitment to publish the working party reports but we are anxious to do so. The Minsters and the chairman want a preliminary view, but we are not delaying publication until deciding what action to take. There are restraints whenever a Government try to publish


any document, particularly for the use of the House, but within a few weeks we hope to have a published interim report that can be looked at by hon. Members and people outside who are interested. It will allow us to take a preliminary view, although I emphasise that the long-term decisions on electrification will not be taken until the full report is published at the end of the year.
In taking that long-term view, the Government accept that electrification is a serious matter that has to be considered. The present energy problems are an important factor in reaching a decision. We should not, however, exaggerate the energy-saving potential. British Rail consumes only a small proportion of the country's oil resources, so electrifying the service will not make huge savings. However, it has other advantages. It is more reliable and cleaner, and has attractive operating advantages for British Rail when it is considering future investment in its service.
Almost the only difficulty is the substantial capital cost involved in every mile of electrification carried forward. The Government, together with the Board, must make a decision on that, and that will be done in the light of the report of the working party. There will be full disclosure to all those interested.
Another major issue of interest is the Channel tunnel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) raised. It has been a persistent issue since I have been in the House and will continue to be so until a final decision is taken. It is once more a live issue that is being considered by the Government. British Rail has produced—it is available to hon. Members—a proposal for a modified Channel tunnel, and that proposal is being considered by the Government. It has not been in the hands of this Government or the previous one for more than a few months. The major problems are feasibility and finance. The previous Government cancelled on financial grounds the project that they inherited, and any Government will have to consider carefully the financial feasibility of proposals and how the money will be raised. These are early days in considering those serious problems.
There is a prospect that European sources will be interested in the Channel tunnel as it would be an important transport link between two European countries. The EEC is carrying out studies of the Channel tunnel project. No doubt in due course we shall have a view from the EEC that may touch on such matters as the possibility of European Investment Bank finance. It is a controversial matter, and at present the Government can be expected to do no more than study the proposal that is being put forward. When that proposal has reached a more polished and considered form, the Government can take a more definite view.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for mentioning a problem with which I am familiar—the Euston-Birmingham line. I am delighted to hear my own Member of Parliament urging an improved standard for a line on which I spend a substantial part of my life. In defence of British Rail, I must say that I have found the service to be adequate. Delays come and go in patches, for operating reasons which are well beyond the understanding of Ministers. I hope that my hon. Friend's election to the House does not coincide with a period when the service is going through a bad patch.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, and endorse in part what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said, that the electrification and modernisation of that service and the high-speed stock resulted in substantial advantages to those who had suffered from the old, inadequate service for many years. It also had an effect on the morale of the staff. The modernisation led to an improvement in the service. It was an investment that attracted traffic. It was a worthwhile investment.
Hon. Members will be able to cite other areas which require equivalent investment and improvement. I hope that I have reassured the House that the Government are alive to the problems and are examining the investment prospects of British Rail in a constructive way. We do not seek to inhibit the proper development of the system.
This order has next to nothing to do with the investment programme. It is a


necessary technical step to enable this year's cash limits to be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft British Railways Board (Borrowing Powers) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (BORROWING POWERS)

1.7 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move.
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1979, which was laid down before this House on 10 July, be approved.
Under section 11 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act the borrowing limit of British Shipbuilders is set at £200 million. There is provision to increase the limit by order, subject to the approval of the House, up to a maximum of £300 million. I propose that the borrowing limit should now be increased to that maximum of £300 million.
The House will be aware, from my statement on Monday, of the background to this proposal. In view of that statement and the lengthy exchanges on it, I do not propose to say anything further about the background.
Merchant shipbuilding is in the grip of a severe recession. This is mirrored by the financial results of the corporation. In its first nine months its trading loss, before interest, was £104 million.
The report and accounts were laid before the House today. Last year the corporation made a trading loss of £49 million against a target of £45 million.
The previous Administration set the loss limit for 1979–80 at £100 million after crediting intervention fund assistance. This increase in the loss limit must have reflected the view held by Ministers then that the going would be tough. Our review has led us to a similar, if not more pessimistic, conclusion.
On capital expenditure, British Shipbuilders is spending at the rate of about £40 million per annum, of which considerably over half is on naval yards. Both the losses to which I have referred and the capital expenditure have to be financed. British Shipbuilders' cash limit this year, including receipts of intervention fund assistance, has accordingly been set at £250 million.
There is some urgency about the need to increase the borrowing limits. That is why we have to debate the order in the final days before the recess. By mid-July, the amount of the corporation


borrowing to be counted against the borrowing limit had risen to approximately £160 million. Of this, about £95 million had been advanced from the national loan fund on an interim basis pending further consideration as to the most appropriate means of financing the corporation. The remainder includes a temporary borrowing facility of £30 million and overseas borrowing in connection with the Polish deal of just over £30 million.
In my statement, I gave a trading loss figure for 1980–81 of £90 million, before crediting intervention fund assistance. Although we still have to set a cash limit for that year, that trading loss limit illustrates all too clearly why we need to raise the borrowing limit above £200 million. Indeed, the increase to £300 million will not be sufficient to last through this financial year, and the Government will bring forward legislation in the autumn to increase the borrowing limit further.
The rapid increase in British Shipbuilders' borrowing requirements underlines the substantial support that has been provided by the Government in the present difficult circumstances of the industry. There is of course a need to strike a balance between the needs of the industry and what the taxpayer is prepared to pay. We cannot provide support without limit. But the point that I stress to the House is that the support that we are providing will be available for a two-year period and this will allow British Shipbuilders to plan accordingly and will remove the uncertainty that has prevailed since the corporate plan was presented to Ministers last winter.
Our hope, which I know is shared by all those who work in the industry, is that British Shipbuilders will take the opportunity provided by Government support over these two years to improve its efficiency and productivity so that when the market recovers it will be able to prosper and compete without subsidy in what is likely still to be a very tough world.
Against a sombre world backcloth for merchant shipbuilding, and in order to give room for Government support for our industry over the next few months until we need to bring forward new legislation, I ask the House to approve the order.

1.13 a.m.

Dr. John Cunningham: We welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward the order, even at this late hour, and we shall not object to its passage. We agree that it is clearly of the utmost urgency that British Shipbuilders' borrowing limit should be increased.
The position in shipbuilding and the financial constraints on British Shipbuilders give us the opportunity to probe the Government further and more carefully on their attitude to British Shipbuilders than we were able to do even in a fairly lengthy series of questions following the Minister of State's statement on Monday.
I start by declaring an interest. I am a sponsored Member of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, which plays a major role in the British shipbuilding industry, both on its own account and as a member of the Confederation of Ship. building and Engineering Unions.
I wish to make clear that, despite what the Minister of State has hinted and some in the media have indicated, there are large and fundamental differences in the positions of the Government and the Opposition in respect to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom.
It is utterly false to suggest that if we had been in office at this time we should have proceeded in the same way as the Government. The position of the previous Government was as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in the Official Report on 4 April this year, beginning in column 829. It is a simple matter for anyone who wishes to compare the relative positions of the major parties on shipbuilding to contrast that statement with the statement made on Monday by the Minister of State, which begins in column 41 of the Official Report for 23 July. It is obvious, even on a cursory appraisal of the two statements, that there are fundamental differences of position.
It is also not true, contrary to what some people have stated outside the House, that the unions involved in the industry—either the individual unions or the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions—accept the position of the Government or, for that matter, any of the options set out by British


Shipbuilders. None of those options was accepted by the previous Government.
It is clear that market forces are not operating in shipbuilding, not only in the United Kingdom but worldwide. There is no use pretending that if our shipbuilding was forced into a position of financial rectitude in the next couple of years the problem would be solved. It would not be solved. The most recent example is the Shell-Esso vessel that went to Finland. Clearly market forces were not operating in respect of that contract, as even the Minister of State, I believe, would acknowledge.
More specifically, the previous Government, and certainly the Opposition now, do not accept the so-called option 2 of British Shipbuilders. We said that we were determined to ensure that British Shipbuilders maintained its share of world shipbuilding. That was the preference of the Labour Government. It remains our position. In view of his remarks in this debate and in view of his statement on Monday, will the Minister of State say whether he thinks that British Shipbuilders will be able to sustain anything like option 2 under the conditions that the Government are laying down? Will British Shipbuilders be able to finance anything like option 2, in view of the Government's attitude to the industry?
The borrowing powers are clearly not adequate. The Minister has already indicated that new legislation will be needed. It is obvious that the maximum will be affected very soon. Will the Minister give some indication when the House can expect the legislation and what it is likely to contain? Even a broad outline would be helpful.
There is a big difference in the attitude of the parties on providing finance for the industry. As the Minister knows, it was our view that financing should be carried out through public dividend capital and not through the national loan fund financial arrangements. Are not repayments to the Government by British Shipbuilders, with money provided by the Government, simply a vicious circle? This will not help the situation. It will probably have a major impact on the ability actually to finance shipbuilding. If, as the Minister indicated, the trading loss limit of British Shipbuilders is to be maintained at £100 million, will there not be

difficulty in providing money on a national loan fund financing basis?
Will the Minister be a little more explicit about the Government's position on orders? He well knows that the Labour Government—and not only Ministers in the Department of Industry but even my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister—worked very hard to obtain work for British Shipbuilders. Orders from the Middle East, the Polish order, the Ministry of Defence orders that we brought forward, and the use of the overseas aid programme—all these matters were given major priority by the Labour Government to keep our shipbuilding intact and to provide work throughout the United Kingdom for British Shipbuilders.
The Government have been rather reticent in saying how they will act in these areas. It is not good enough to say that there are no orders around. We recognise that there is a major problem in world shipbuilding, but the Government could show a little more willingness—it would not be difficult to show a little more; they have not shown much so far—to try to get work for a major traditional industry.
How will the intervention fund be used? Indeed, what use will it be if there are no orders? The Government have a major responsibility there. One has only to look at British Shipbuilders' berth programme to see that many of our major yards, on the Clyde, the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees will face imminent problems.
We call upon the Government to act much more urgently and with more vigour to tackle these very serious problems for communities in the areas that I have mentioned. They are likely to run out of work very quickly now—some, perhaps, within a matter of weeks.
Will the Minister also tell us a little more about the Government's attitude to the ship repairing industry? Again, major problems exist, but the Government have given little or no indication of their approach to this section of the industry. The Minister will know that before the general election a Bill had been published to change the law on the credit guarantee scheme for ship repairing. Is it the Government's intention to bring forward such a Bill? If so, when is it


likely to appear? What proposals do the Government have to help this section of the industry? Are talks proceeding within the industry, with both the public and the private sectors of ship repairing, about any help under the Industry Act or in any other way?
Another important question is, what will happen in the industries associated with shipbuilding, such as the marine engine industry? Already a large number of redundancies have been declared at Doxford Engines Ltd., on the Wear. What will happen to our national capability? What will happen to companies such as Doxford, and to Kincaid, in Scotland? Shall we be able to maintain a capability in slow-speed diesel engines with these financial arrangements being laid down by the Government?
I say to the Minister, as we said to him when he made his statement, that we do not regard the financial arrangements as adequate. Perhaps more importantly, we do not regard the time scale that he envisages, the two years about which he has talked, as being anything like sufficient to give the industry and the unions a fair chance to resolve the problems. That is being quite fair with the Minister. There are major problems. The unions recognise that. They want a fair amount of time to get to grips with the problems.
Is it reasonable, is it in the national interest, to put such a straitjacket on our own industry when we know that other Governments in Europe and beyond are being far more relaxed in their approach to their own industries? Is it not true that it is not the fault of the British shipbuilding industry that there is such massive excess capacity in the world? That has nothing to do with our industry, which has hardly expanded its capacity for the past 20 years; in fact it has probably contracted slightly in that time. Do we not also have good, well equipped shipyards in this country, and should not we do everything possible, in terms of the financial structure and the time scale, to ensure that it survives the crisis in world shipbuilding?
I have said more than enough to make clear that there are fundamental differences between the former Labour Government's approach to British Shipbuilders and that of the present Administration.

Our policy was to save as many jobs as possible, to maintain a share of the world market to ensure that British orders for ships as far as possible went to British shipyards. We wanted to safeguard our technology and our capability in new marine technology, in emergency support vessels which are so important to the development of our continental shelf activities. Would it not be outrageous if we were unable to continue to provide vessels like that, when we are becoming a world leader in the development of offshore oil and gas resources? I have already mentioned slow-speed marine diesel engines.
I am in no doubt that it is totally false to suggest that there is little or no difference between the two approaches to the problems of shipbuilding. There is no doubt in the minds of workers and their unions on the Clyde in Birkenhead, on the Tyne and elsewhere in the North-East about this matter. The Minister of State should recall the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and be careful that the ghost of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders does not come back to haunt him with the same results as it had at that time for his hon. Friend.
Many of my hon. Friends, some of whom are here tonight, have been appalled by the Government's statement and the devastation that is likely to be caused in many of their constituencies. They, too, have many important questions to put to the Minister in this debate.

1.28 a.m.

Sir William Elliott: Like the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), I recognise the need for putting forward this order at this late hour. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there are fundamental differences in the approach of each side of the House to our shipbuilding industry. What each side has in common is the need to face hard economic facts. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman about our need, as a nation, to maintain a viable and sound shipbuilding industry, but we have to look hard at the industry to see whether it is sound and viable, and I am afraid we find that it is not. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the taxpayer cannot be expected for ever to supply support without limit.
Any curtailment of the shipbuilding industry is as serious for the Tyne, part of which I represent, as it is for any other part of the country. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Whitehaven that we have some good modern yards, including the Wallsend shipyard on the Tyne.
Today's press—produced an hour ago—states that the heaviest loss in British shipbuilding last year was in the area of the Tyne. The once proud Swan Hunter sector of the British shipbuilding industry is showing a pre-tax loss of £15·8 million—a great increase on the figures of a year ago. It is essential to realise that there is no future for our shipbuilding industry unless our yards are made reasonably competitive and unless hard economic facts are faced.
British Shipbuilders' target, to cut merchant shipbuilding capacity to 430,000 tons by March 1981, is optimistic. There was only 230,000 tons of new orders last year. No matter how much the hon. Member for Whitehaven extols the virtues of the Labour Government's approach to the shipbuilding industry, the previous Government cannot avoid that hard fact. Thank heavens for naval work for the Tyne. Without that we would be in a sorry state.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven suggests that the new Government's approach is wrong. However, he is at variance with British Shipbuilders. The chief executive, Mr. Casey, suggests that the present Government's statement on shipbuilding ends an era of uncertainly for British Shipbuilders. At least it now knows where it is. As Mr. Casey states, British Shipbuilders is on its mettle. It has two years in which to show results. The Tyne is grateful for those two years. With its proud record, the Tyne is prepared to have a go in those two years, within the Government's guidelines, at helping to make our industry competitive in the years to come. Surely, there is a place for British shipbuilding in the years which lie ahead. I commend the Government for introducing the order.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has put the Opposition case well. When we talk of British Shipbuilders we are not talking about competition in this country. I remind the

hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) that I have worked in every shipbuilding and repairing yard on the Tyne.
Mr. Ken Douglas, who runs Austin and Pickersgill's nationalised yard, wrote in an article in The Guardian on Monday:
We are not competing against the Japanese shipbuilder or the Japanese shipyard worker, or the German or the Belgian or the Dutch or anything else. We are competing as a Government with Government terms offered elsewhere and it is a purely political thing. If Japan is giving a 50 per cent. subsidy, half the price of the ship, what kind of productivity levels would we have to reach to compete with that? If our men built the ship for nothing, we still can't win.
I fail to understand how the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North can talk about competition and getting productivity right when we have to face international factors such as that.
When I asked the Minister of State a supplementary question about his statement on shipbuilding, I was told that I was being emotive. This is an emotive issue. We are not talking about one job. We are talking about whole communities. To many in the industry shipbuilding is not just a job but a way of life. The close relationship that exists between working and living environments certainly exists on the Tyne, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, should know.
The social and economic life of whole communities relies upon shipbuilding. Perhaps I may give some examples to bear out what I have said. First I refer to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). Some years ago a survey was conducted in the Swan Hunter yard at Wallsend. It was found that 62 per cent. of the work force lived in Wallsend or in the two adjacent districts. On Wearside the situation is more marked. A recent survey at Austin and Pickersgill's Southwick yard showed that 37 per cent. of the work force lived within one mile of the yard and that only 1·5 per cent. lived more than five miles from it.
Shipbuilding and the connected industries have formed an important part of the heavy industrial base of the North-East for many years. In certain areas in the North-East there is a long tradition of employment in shipbuilding and ship


repairing, and we have a highly skilled labour force. Nearly 8 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry in the Northern region is in shipbuilding and marine engineering. That compares with under 2·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. In certain parts of the North-East the concentration is much higher. On Wearside it is 20 per cent. and on Tyneside 16 per cent. That probably underestimates the amount of employment generated by the industry in the North-East, because many engineering firms carry out marine engineering work.
Within the North-East region there exists a totally integrated shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, supplied and serviced almost wholly from within the region. That state of affairs is not to be found in any other part of the United Kingdom. Apart from the importance to the North-East of the shipbuilding and repairing industries, those industries play an important part in the economic life of the Northern region.
Unemployment in the Northern region has been consistently higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland. The region accounts for over 20 per cent. of the total employment in shipbuilding and marine engineering in the United Kingdom. We were able, because of the skills and capacities, to take advantage of the boom in orders in 1973. In that year 51 per cent. of the tonnage launched in the United Kingdom was launched in North-East yards.
In March 1974, 44 per cent. of the industry's total order book was with firms in the North-East. That impressive record was achieved over the years without much Government aid. Is it fair, when there is a world surplus of shipping, that the British shipbuilding industry should contract when it has been declining for years? Unemployment has been exported to us from some nations with newly established shipbuilding industries. We in the North-East cannot accept any further contraction in the industry there.
In addition to shipbuilding and ship repairing, the North has many other organisations connected with them. The university of Newcastle has the largest and foremost naval architectural department in the country. It has close connections with the industry in the

North-East and elsewhere. The university also has a marine industry centre which was set up in 1970. The centre is a university department, but its activities are mainly commercially oriented. Its aims are to provide a consultancy service to the industry by means of contract research and development, and technical consultancy.
Sunderland polytechnic has a department of naval architecture, too, and in South Shields we have the marine and technical college, which is internationally known. With these institutions in the North-East, we have the greatest concentration in the country of technical education facilities directly concerned with the shipbuilding industry.
The British Ship Research Association has its headquarters at Wallsend, again in my hon. Friend's constituency. The association is the central research organisation of the British shipbuilding industry and offers a consultancy service as well as undertaking longer-term research and development projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven made the point that finance is not the only thing that shipbuilding requires. It needs orders, and they must be provided. I come now to a few suggestions, to some of which reference has already been made. First, we require a scrap-and-build scheme, and the sooner we get it the better. We shall then be able to get some orders and be able to use the finance of the intervention fund. There should be more attractive credit terms for intending buyers. There should be special incentives to home shipowners to build in British yards. We should bring forward orders in the defence programme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, and we should ask harbour authorities and other suitable bodies to bring forward their vessel replacement programmes. We should investigate the possibilities of diversification in shipbuilding.
I make this other suggestion, too. When I worked in the ship repairing industry, as I did for a considerable time, a lot of the work that was done—I talk about Brigham and Cowan, Redhead, Middle Docks and Smith's Dock repair yards—was on converting ships from coal to oil. It might be a good idea, because of the energy crisis, if we started converting them back to coal. That would probably


give a lot of work to the ship repairing industry.
I do not often talk about statistics, because I have been unemployed on a number of occasions and I know that there is no point in standing in the dole queue and being told "You are only one of 50 per cent. and last week you were one of 60 per cent." If a man is unemployed, he is 100 per cent. unemployed.
The other thing to be remembered about unemployment in the North-East, where it is fairly high, is that it is worse than a prison sentence, because a man who goes to gaol at least knows that he will be released but a man who is paid off in the North-East does not know when he will get a job.
Here are the odds against a worker paid off in the shipyards in the North-East getting another job, and again I take this one from one of the national newspapers. They are 71 to one against for a steel worker; for the fitting-out trades—painters, plumbers, electricians and so on—they are up to 45 to one against; and for an unskilled worker they are 371 to one against.
I said in my maiden speech, and I emphasise it again now, that we will not tolerate the solutions of the 1930s being applied to the problems of the 1980s, yet that apparently is what the present Government are trying to do to the shipbuilding industry. We have already seen what rationalisation does. We saw it in the 1930s, when we had National Shipbuilding Securities Limited going about the country buying up shipyards, selling the assets and putting a 40-year embargo on the building of ships. I know from experience, because in Jarrow, the town where I was born, they came in 1934 and bought a Palmer's yard, sold the assets and put a 40-year embargo on, throwing the men on the streets. Yet, a few years later, when there was a war in 1939, the men were taken back into the industry.
A shipyard worker was so vital during the war that he was exempt from going into the Army, and if he did not work overtime he was up before a tribunal and fined for not doing it. Yet these were the men who had been thrown on the scrapheap a few years before through private enterprise and the operation of the market forces that we hear about so

often from the present Government Britain is an island, and it requires a shipbuilding industry in peacetime as well as in wartime.
I have no doubt that many people will know the name J. B. Priestley, a well-known novelist. He visited Jarrow during the 1930s after the shipbuilding industry had closed down. He wrote about the hundreds of men who were standing about the streets and about shops being closed. He referred to the area as giving the impression of having "entered a bleak Sabbath ". That is what happens when communities are broken up. We are talking not about individual jobs but about closely knit communities that rely on the industry. They rely on not only marine engineering firms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for White haven referred, but such things as shops and credit facilities.
I hope that the Minister of State will answer soma; of the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven. It is vital that certain questions are answered and that action is taken to save the many jobs that I fear will be lost in the shipbuilding industry in the near future.

1.46 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Despite the lateness of the hour, it is highly suitable that we should have a brief debate on the future of the shipbuilding industry. If one thing is certain, it is that the statement made earlier this week spread a considerable amount of doom and gloom through the industry. When the Minister of State made his statement about the aid that is to be given to the industry, he was extremely quiet about the use to which the funds that are to be made available might be applied. He was quiet about the scrap-and-build orders. He merely said that these were a hope for the future. He did not spell out when the ships might be made available.
It is clear that the industry is fast running out of orders. As the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has said, an intervention fund is of no use if there are no orders on which the moneys can be spent. I hope that it is impressed upon the Minister that non-use of the intervention fund through the non-availability of orders will not be


tolerated and will not be accepted. I warn the hon. Gentleman that the feeling in Scotland on the issue will be strong indeed. In previous years a Conservative Government experienced difficulty when facing the might of the shipbuilding workers.
The Minister said on Monday that he had given orders to British Shipbuilders that within a tight time span it was to order the butchery of the industry, the loss of about 10,000 jobs and the closure of yards. To him that may seem a reasonable financial target to achieve, but to those of us who live in communities which derive badly needed employment from the shipbuilding industry that policy is harsh, inhuman, unkind and, even by the Government's standards, had economics.
In Dundee there is now over 10 per cent. male unemployment. It seems that about 1,000 jobs are at stake at the Robb Caledon yard. If those jobs are lost, male unemployment will be increased to an extremely high level. These are not matters that can be disregarded. They mean a tremendous amount to the communities involved.
What future does the Minister hold out to yards such as Robb Caledon, on the Tay? They were taken into public ownership on two bases. The first basis was maintenance of employment. It was argued that public ownership was the only way of safeguarding the jobs. How does the Minister relate the promises made two or three years ago, which he has now to honour through his Department, with the statement that he made earlier this week and the criteria that he outlined then?
The second basis was investment in new facilities. When the Robb Caledon yard was in private ownership, there was little investment in new machinery and equipment. Therefore, those who worked in the yard had their hands tied behind their backs, because they were using outdated machinery. Yet since the yard was nationalised little has been spent on new equipment.
If, as the Minister said, much of the money that has been made available by the expansion of the limits is to go on revenue financing, how much will be available for the modernisation of such a yard? A yard such as the Caledon, which

has never been modernised and has been allowed to remain undeveloped, is in the market for the smaller ships—those which are likely to be on the market, particularly if a scrap-and-build policy is initiated. It is the smaller ships which are older, nearing the end of their lives. That yard is well placed to deal with ships of that size. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should outline tonight when the scrap-and-build policy will be put in motion, how many orders he envisages will come from it, and what future he expects for a yard such as the Caledon.
Over the next few months many people will be asking the Government questions about those areas which are north of the prosperous areas of the United Kingdom—the prosperous areas where the fat cats in the South, who get their taxation benefits, live. We represent areas which are suffering from industrial recession and depression. It seems to me that the present Government are dedicated to stripping away from our areas what limited employment resources they have, with no realistic plans for the provision of fresh jobs which might take the place of those made redundant by technology.
I do not think that the Minister can justify any policy which will butcher the yards in Scotland at this time, when our country is not only suffering from the employment difficulties that I have mentioned but is contributing, through the oil revenues and the development of the oil resources, vast sums of money to the English Government, who seem dedicated to using that money to prop up rich people in the South of England rather than giving jobs to the folk in Scotland.

Mr. Frank Field: The Government's record over a short period has already given a rude awakening to many groups, none more than those who followed the fashionable opinion. One debating point outside the Chamber is the question where power lies in our society. For Members of this Parliament there can be little doubt where it lies. Ministers exercise considerable power, and that power is being used ruthlessly in industrial matters, especially in the shipbuilding industry.
I have two tasks tonight. First, I want to show, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham),


that the order, which is part of a Government strategy on shipbuilding, marks a major change in the Government's approach to the industry. Secondly, I want to report some of the views of workers in Cammell Laird, the shipyard in my constituency. What does the order mean? What does the Government's policy mean for workers in Birkenhead?
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) quoted the comment of the chief executive of British Shipbuilders, Mr. Casey, who has said that the Government's statement earlier this week ended the uncertainty in the industry. That may well be so for chief executives, but the uncertainty continues for workers in the industry. Indeed, the statement heightens that uncertainty.
On a number of important policy issues the Government have been making out that they are not making decisions affecting the numbers of jobs within the industry under discussion. We heard it in relation to Shotton and we heard it earlier this week in relation to British Shipbuilders. They were setting down cash limits. That might mean job reductions, but somehow it was not the Government's direct responsibility. Their attempt to wash their hands of responsibility for the numbers being made redundant by Government policy is to outshine Pontius Pilate in this respect.
The increased uncertainty that workers are finding certainly at Cammell Laird—according to the chairman of the shop stewards' committee—is hardly a stimulus to increase productivity. Expecting the chop—having the sword of Damocles hanging over jobs—is hardly a stimulus to production, let alone to breaking records.
The chairman of the shop stewards' committee reports that we cannot expect to get the best out of men at a time when we desperately need to do so when there is so much uncertainty not at chief executive but at grass roots level.
The decision that we are in part debating tonight about shipbuilding and the way in which it is affecting different regions—specifically Merseyside—cannot be divorced from other Government policies, such as the closure of Shotton and the possible spill-over of the loss of 1,000 jobs in Merseyside. It may be that later today we shall get a statement about

the Government cancelling their Civil Service dispersal policy, with the consequent loss of up to 3,000 jobs that we hoped to get. These are major body blows to an area suffering from high unemployment.
The last comment that I want to report from the chairman of the shop stewards' committee is that, with all these policies mounting and pushing more and more people out of work, the Government would be foolish to expect their decisions to be accepted quietly. That matter should weigh with us when considering the effects of the order within the wider context of Government policy on shipbuilding.
The second task on which I want to touch—my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven has already referred to it—is the importance of showing that a major change in the direction of policy towards shipbuilding has come with a change of Government. The bipartisan approach to merchant shipbuilding is clearly over. We can see that in the way that the Government are defining the capacity of the industry.
Earlier this week the Minister of State, Department of Industry, vis-à-vis the capacity of shipbuilding, said:
I have had to say that the capacity of 430,000 tons is the highest figure that, in our view, could be retained."—[Official Report, 23 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 42.]
Compare that with previous Labour Governments' commitments on capacity. To a Labour Government 430,000 tons was a floor. To this Government it is a ceiling.
Another way of defining the capacity of the industry was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven. He said that the Labour Government were prepared to commit resources to keep British shipbuilding's share of world trade. The present Government are not prepared to make such a commitment, because they see the capacity of the industry differently—a much smaller capacity for shipbuilding workers.
There are now four major differences in policy between the two parties. First, and perhaps most important, there is the amount of financial support that the present Government are prepared to give to shipbuilding. That level of support stems directly from their tax-cutting Budget of eight weeks ago. Earlier this


week, when I questioned the Minister, I tried to develop what was a popular phrase of yesteryear—that one person's wage increase was another person's price increase—by suggesting that under this Government one person's tax cut was another person's job loss.
The Minister took issue with me, so my first question is this: if the tax cuts are to result in a surfacing of new jobs, when are those new jobs going to surface? When can Members representing shipbuilding constituencies tell those who are to be made unemployed by the fundamental change in Government policy when to expect the new jobs?

Mr. Cordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Government are so confident that their new economic policies are going to work, it would be more correct to maintain jobs in the shipbuilding industry until those new jobs are made available? If the Government do not do that, it indicates that they have no intention of providing those new jobs within a reasonable time span.

Mr. Field: That would certainly be a humane and sensible approach. We must leave it to the Minister to tell us whether it is his approach.
The first major difference is on the level of financial support that the parties are prepared to give to shipbuilding and the capacity of the industry. The second difference lies in the urgency with which they are prepared to bring forward public orders. Again, one needs to compare the Minister of State's statement on shipbuilding—when he said that the Government would advance public sector orders where practicable—with the statement that the Labour Government made before the election, in which they said their policy was to bring forward as many public sector orders as possible, adding that the intervention fund would be used to help secure those orders. Will the intervention fund be used similarly by this Government?
The third difference on shipbuilding policy between the two sides is the linkup between foreign aid programmes and the winning of orders by our hard-pressed yards. Again, let us compare the commitment of the Labour Government with the absence of any statement or reference to using the aid programme by

the Minister of State when he made his statement on the industry.
The fourth major difference on shipbuilding policy between the two parties is the extent to which they will back the attempts to export naval ships. Again, we must compare the non-reference in the statement to the development of this side of our programme with the earlier statement by the Labour Government on what their plans would be if they won the election.
One of the messages that we want to take from this debate to the country is that we are not prepared to accept from the Government that there is no difference between the approach of a Labour Government and the approach of a Conservative Government to the shipbuilding industry. There are major differences—for example, in our commitment to merchant shipbuilding capacity. There are four questions that I wish to put to the Minister.
The first comes from workers at Cammell Laird. They feel that when we compete for both home and foreign orders we do so with our arms behind our backs—that we do not compete on equal terms with some of our competitors. For example, they quote the recent Shell order, which went to Finland. In this country we would have found it very difficult to cover raw materials in the agreed price.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I had the pleasure, with the hon. Gentleman, of visiting Cammell Laird last Friday, and I agree that much has been done there to improve the yard's productivity. But the competitiveness that the hon. Gentleman talks about was not restricted to price. Does not he agree that the Finnish tender was also very much better in terms of delivery date—a matter that our own industry must get to grips with?

Mr. Field: I agree with the hon. Member. Even if we could have competed on the time factor, the difference of £40 million—a sum far greater than the final agreed price—would have left us at the starting point rather than the finishing gate. Productivity is one side. The first point that I made—I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) picked this up when he was at the yard last week—was that when there is such uncertainty in the industry it is


terribly difficult to improve productivity. All the efforts are to stretch out the orders rather than complete them on time.
I return to my questions. First, shall we be able to compete on equal terms? Secondly, what is the Minister's commitment on bringing forward public sector orders? Are we to use the intervention fund? Thirdly, what part does the Minister see in trying to link the gaining of orders with our foreign aid programmes? Fourthly, will there be a real desire on the part of the Government to chase every order going—foreign and home—so as to make some difference to the number of redundancies that hang over our shipyards? If those questions are answered in the affirmative, will the Minister give us an undertaking that soon after we return from the recess he will report progress on all four fronts?

2.6 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: It is remarkable that for two successive days I have sat in this Chamber and have only now been lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I represent a constituency that has the largest number of people employed in the industry, the largest volume of work in the industry, and the largest volume of naval work under construction. I can only assume that Mr. Speaker was so blinded by the eloquence of some of my hon. Friends that he overlooked a humble Back Bencher such as me.
This debate is only one and a half hours in length. Some of my younger and somewhat vociferous hon. Friends might bear that in mind on other occasions. The essential thing about this House is not just that one should speak but that one should listen, too.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) for putting the points that I would have liked to put had I been Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Those who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) speak will have relished the feelings of my hon. Friend on this issue. I was born and bred in that area, but I have never worked in a shipyard. However, I understand the feelings that my hon. Friend tried to express.
We must recognise that the Minister has a difficult and unpleasant job to perform. While we on the Labour Benches may make a lot of noise on the issue, we have to remember that there are some difficult decisions to make.
I pay credit to the chairman, chief executive and the board of British Shipbuilders, which has made a great contribution to solving the nation's employment problem during a difficult period. I hope that the Minister will convey my views to those concerned. The one question that I wish to ask is this: will the Minister impress upon the board and his advisers the necessity for British Shipbuilders to continue with the high level of technological research that has been a feature of this important industry throughout the years? If—I use that word deliberately—and when the situation improves for merchant shipping orders, and for naval orders, too, I hope that this research will be maintained at a high financial level. That is my contribution to the debate.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for White-haven (Dr. Cunningham), for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I propose to make one or two points because, whether one is a Back Bencher of long standing or a new Member, one cannot run away from the fact that there has been a change in the strategy for the industry that we are considering and that there is a difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House.
If the Government were sincere in what they say from the Dispatch Box, they would not cut subsidies to industry and jobs would not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency. Instead, there would be an immediate halt to our contribution to the Common Market. We are now contributing £1,000 million as our membership fee—£1,000 million that could be invested in jobs in this country. This money is being paid in spite of the fact that the Common Market is one of the most inefficient institutions in the world, and in spite of the fact, also, that the majority of the people in Britain did not vote at the European elections.
This is all part of what members of the Conservative Party call being good Europeans. Off they go to Brussels, Union Jacks in one hand and blank chques in the other, throwing thousands of people, young and old, on to the dole queues through cuts in regional aid and cuts in support for British Shipbuilders. At the same time, they are prepared to pay £1 billion to a grossly inefficient Common Market to qualify for a badge as a good European. Will the Minister guarantee that if the Common Market does not, in his own words, produce high levels of efficiency and productivity within two years the Government will withdraw all aid to that lame duck?
I remind the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that one reason for this debate is the absence of his party. Every time there is a price increase, every time there is a reduction in social services, every time there is a factory or shipyard closure, every time there is a rent increase in Scotland, the working people of this country will remember the actions of the tartan Tories who connived with their Tory comrades to bring down the Labour Government and replace them with a party dedicated in its continued determination irreversibly to alter the balance of wealth and power in this country in favour of those who have most and need it least. In particular, the shipyard workers in Scotland, as they sign on the dole queue, will not forget those who conspired to bring them to that situation. As the quality of their life deteriorates even further, the magnificent 11 will not be forgotten.
On 4 April of this year the then Secretary of State for Industry said:
it is clear that, given the severity of the world recession, the Corporation will continue to make substantial losses because its facilities are not running at their economic level."—[Official Report, 4 April 1979; Vol 965, c. 831]
The situation has changed. Why have the Government stipulated a two-year moratorium? Are they privy to some secret that they cannot share with this side of the House? Have they some inside information of a sudden and dramatic upsurge in worldwide shipbuilding requirements? Does any other European nation agree with this two-year moratorium for shipbuilding, or is it just another exercise by the Conservative

Party in an attempt to convince the public at large that it is genuinely concerned to give Britsh Shipbuilders an opportunity to survive?
I remind the House of the comments of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). While it is true that his Administration had a record of monumental failure, compared with what the present Government are proposing for the next two or three years it could be regarded as weak and pale. Speaking in Dundee in September 1969, the right hon. Member for Sidcup said:
We refuse to condemn large parts of the Kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment in pursuit of old-fangled 19th century doctrines of laissez-faire.
The Minister would do well to convey that message to his overlord, the Secretary of State for Industry. He might also remind him of the last Joseph who had responsibility for looking after the economic prosperity of a country. He was adviser to the Egyptian pharaoh and achieved prosperity not by cuts in public expenditure or aid to industry but by the good old Socialist approach of public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of the corn of Egypt.
I concede that today's Joseph has a not insignificant difficulty to overcome. His pharaoh is a bit of a dreamer. She has a current fantasy that by throwing people out of work, raising prices and cutting services she can make them better off, and by his actions it appears that the Secretary of State intends to interpret those fantasies literally.
Finally, I wish to mention a yard in my area. Robb Caledon is a specialist builder, and if it goes, with it will go some of the best specialist skills in shipbuilding and design in the country. Once they are lost we shall not be able to bring them back, even if shipbuilding comes out of its present slump.
The Robb Caledon shipyard has the ability to build ships on the very edge of technology. Recently it built a cable-laying ship for the Post Office, which many other yards in Britain did not even bother to tender for. We are concerned about the jobs and the future prosperity of 105 apprentices in that yard and the future apprenticeships that might be available to the people in Dundee. Perhaps


in his reply the Minister will deal with that problem.

2.17 a.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: One advantage of a debate at this time of night is that only those with a genuine interest in the industry are likely to come to the Chamber and make a contribution, and I appreciate the support of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are here because the Whips tell us to be.

Mr. Butler: It also gives hon. Members a useful opportunity to make further points and for me to answer questions for which perhaps there was insufficient time on Monday. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) need not worry. We have to stop at 2.37 a.m. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), as official spokesman for his party, covered most of the points subsequently raised, and I shall concentrate mainly on what he said.
I shall pass on the words of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) to the board of British Shipbuilders. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman felt that I, too, had a difficult job, but the onus is on the corporation. As the chief executive said, the corporation is on its mettle, and I am sure that it will rise to the task.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked many questions.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: Will the Minister emphasise the importance of maintaining the research establishments within the United Kingdom, and if necessary extending them? I repeat that there is a necessity to meet the challenge in 1981. We may have a smaller force, but it will require more technology. We must maintain that technology for the reserve position.

Mr. Butler: Hansard is being printed again, and I shall draw attention to what the hon. Member has said.
As I said, the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked me many questions, with which I hope to deal. One of the reasons why Cammell Laird has a good future is the new covered shed. I saw the type 42 only a few weeks ago. That covered shed exists because of the investment of funds by the previous Conservative Government, and that is appreciated in

the yard. I hope that the hon. Member will remember that, because some people think that Tory Governments have done nothing for shipbuilders. We are doing what we can to help now, in an even worse situation.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the scrap-and-build scheme. This scheme has been proposed by the Commission. It has not got far and the details are not finalised. Basically, for every 2 tonnes of shipping scrapped 1 tonne would be built in its place. There would be a subsidy both for scrapping and for rebuilding. It would be a Community scheme.
We are in favour of the scheme, with certain important conditions. I am not prepared to put Government funds into a central Community fund unless we get something out of it. That is one of my principal conditions. If the scheme is to work, it must be introduced as soon as possible. But it will not be introduced for some months. I shall see what I can do to urge it on its way.
The scrap-and-build scheme will not result in many orders. The British merchant shipping fleet is young. Those shipowners with whom I have talked do not view the scrap-and-build scheme with particular interest. Some would take advantage of it. If the scheme produced only a few ships, it would be welcome in our yards. I intend to press the Commission to proceed with the scheme as soon as possible.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, when production is low it is difficult to increase productivity. That is a fact of industrial life. I have told management and unions that much rests on improving productivity. They realise that. They will make all efforts to improve productivity. I hope that nothing will he done to discourage them.
We must compete in the world, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said. Japanese prices, without subsidy are about half ours. Japanese productivity is more than twice as good as ours. We have to compete against such countries. Let us go for increases in productivity to improve the output of our yards.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven made some serious comments. He raised the question of financing the corporation. I referred to the use of the national


loans fund on an interim basis while we are considering what to do permanently. My words were similar to those used by the previous Administration in April. It was then suggested that public dividend capital should be the basis. That is one of the options. This is not of vital consequence at present. I said in my statement that we would reduce the capital to zero, which will help to cope with the problem of interest, but we shall be concluding, fairly soon I hope, what should be the capital basis of the corporation.
The hon. Gentleman asked what help there might be for ship repairing. I assure him that we intend to bring forward a Bill soon after the recess to extend the home credit scheme to conversions by British shipowners, and that will certainly help our ship repairing businesses. I must say, however, that certain ship repair interests are profitable, and they are in the private sector. It may be that that is a better place for ship repair interests. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The hon. Gentleman referred to marine engines. We regret the redundancies that have been declared at Doxford, but I am told that they have been in the air for some time, and the blame cannot be attached to the Government. There are three other marine engine builders, all operating under licence, and some of those are in better shape than is Doxford, but where there is a problem with ships there is a problem with marine engines.
There is hope in regard to slow diesel engines. We hope that there will be a demand because of the need for fuel economy. Certain ships throughout the world are converting to diesel, and that may bring orders to our companies.
The hon. Gentleman wisely pointed out that the intervention fund is of no use unless there are orders. The record of the past year of operation has shown the truth of that statement. Despite a fairly high ceiling, the amount of intervention fund money used during the past year was as little as £15 million. We need orders, and I could not have stressed that more in my statement on Monday.
I turn to the important question whether there is a difference between the approach of the Government and that of

the previous Administration. The proposals on scrap and build, home credits for conversion, some extension to credits under OECD regulations and the bringing forward of orders all appeared in the April statement and in my statement.
The hon. Member for Jarrow said that we cannot tolerate the solutions of the 1930s. If he believes that we are putting forward such solutions, he must also point an accusing finger at his party, because the measures that I propose are virtually identical to those in the policy of the previous Administration.

Dr. John Cunningham: That is not good enough. It is not fair for the Minister to make that assertion. We acknowledge that the policies to which he has referred are the same. It would be foolish to deny that, but there is a major difference between us.
The Minister is making a far better winding-up speech than we had dared to hope for, but there was no suggestion in our previous policy that we would guarantee finance for the industry for only two more years, and no suggestion that we would accept option 2 as a maximum capacity position for the industry. There is no common ground between us on those fundamental points.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was leaving the best bits until the end. He told us that the Government did not accept any of the options put forward by British Shipbuilders. It is British Shipbuilders, not the Government, which has put forward the options. It is the preferred strategy of British Shipbuilders, not that of the Government, that we discussed on Monday.
The previous Administration found a cunning way of expressing the situation, saying that they were prepared to support British Shipbuilders in retaining its share of world shipbuilding. That was accepted. But what use is it? A figure of 3½ per cent. of world shipbuilding was mentioned. Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that if the world shipbuilding capacity reduces, so, in real terms, does that 3½ per cent.? The Japanese, with more than half the world capacity, have reduced that capacity by at least one-third and, according to my recent information, are only operating one-third of the remaining two-thirds. World capacity has come down by a substantial


amount. The hon. Gentleman will find the same picture in Europe. German yards and others have been cut by a similar amount—by one-third, by 40 per cent., and in some cases by a half. So the figure of 3½ per cent. will represent considerably less than the hon. Gentleman thought it represented a short time ago.
It was a weasel way of trying to say that he would support the industry at its then current rate. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that this could not be done, because he had seen the corporate plan of British Shipbuilders. That is the second main difference between this Government and his Administration. This Government acted. His Government sat on the corporate plan, doing nothing for months until the vote in this House that signalled a general election, when the Government hurried out with a programme. There was a row about having debates or not having debates and giving replies by written answer. A long statement was issued in the form of a written answer about what the Government intended to do. The statement was long overdue. What it revealed was what the Government had not done. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Labour Administration. We have acted.
There was no intervention fund. It had lapsed nearly two months before I took up office. My first action was to get the fund operating again.

Dr. John Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is using immoderate language. If he were to practise what he preaches, he would regret his choice of words. He is erecting his argument around the fact that a statement was made, or, as he says, rushed out, on 4 April. Does he think that the Secretary of State for Industry at that time knew that there was to be a general election? Of course he did not, so the hon. Gentleman's argument falls.

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Industry knew that there was to be an election, but the rest of the country did. The Government had been defeated in the House. It was bound to come about. The only question was a date at the end of April or the beginning of May. If the right hon. Gentleman did

not know, I am sorry, but the difference is that this Government acted, whereas the previous Government sat and did nothing, having presided over a reduction of 11,000 or 12,000 jobs in the merchant shipbuilding industry in the previous two years. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of bringing about that situation, but it is hypocritical to suggest now that he did not know that further reduction had to take place in the industry.
I am accused of offering aid to the shipbuilding industry for two years. I take pride in the fact that we have put forward our ideas for a two-year period. That is another difference. There was nothing in the April statement to indicate how long the aid would continue.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the former Government fell on 28 March.

Mr. Butler: I would never dispute any date that my hon. Friend puts forward. I am grateful to him. Therefore, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State for Industry knew what the future held.
As I was saying, we have at least been prepared to look forward for two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) said, this was appreciated by the British Shipbuilders board. The chief executive said that this had removed the uncertainty. I prefer that to a statement of the sort that we had in April, looking forward only a single year.
As I said on Monday, the help that may be needed after that period will depend largely on the extent to which those in the industry have succeeded in helping themselves. By that I mean that if the industry can show that it has got itself into a competitive state, that will he the sort of industry that all of us would want to see and would be prepared to support. That is where I stand—on the final paragraph of my statement on Monday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

2.36 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the draft undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland on the one hand, and the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company on the other, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved.
The Government are committed, through their election pledges, to
the survival and prosperity of the Island communities of Scotland and accepts that the cost of sea transport to the Islands is an important factor to this survival and prosperity".
It is for this reason that we are at the moment undertaking a thoroughgoing review of the present system of ferry subsidies. When this is complete, which we hope will be by the end of this year, it should be possible to say when and at what cost the Government can honour their manifesto pledge to move towards a road equivalent tariff for ferry charges.
But the world does not stand still and, for a number of reasons, we cannot forgo all action until this review is complete. It seems timely to lessen the burden of sea transport costs, especially freight costs, on the arterial scheduled services between the islands of Orkney and Shetland and the mainland. These are the services from Aberdeen to Lerwick in Shetland and Stromness in Orkney and the short crossing from Scrabster in Caithness to Stromness. They are run by the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company, a subsidiary of the P and O shipping company.
Shipping services on the West Coast already receive substantial Government aid through the deficit grant paid to Caledonian MacBrayne. But the services to Orkney and Shetland run by P and O operate with no Government assistance at all. They are one of the few remaining major surface transport links in Scotland which run on a wholly commercial basis. But their charges have been a cause of complaint within the islands and this has been reflected in pressures from the islands on successive Administrations for some relief.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and many public bodies and individuals within the islands have pressed for a number of years for some assistance to be given on these routes. This is the purpose of the draft undertaking before the House today. This undertaking would enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company to enable fare reductions to be made on its services. I must stress that this is not a deficit grant to a loss-making company. It is a direct Government subvention to enable specific fare reductions to be made on the services. The Secretary of State proposes to pay to the shipping company a grant which will be precisely equal to the amount of revenue which it forgoes as a result of making fare reductions requested by my right hon. Friend.
The draft undertaking is laid before the House under section 2(3) of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960. This Act empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to shipping operators in the Highlands and Islands but obliges him to lay a draft undertaking before Parliament and seek the approval of this House if he proposes to make a grant of more than £10,000. In this case the Secretary of State proposes to spend, in this financial year, around £800,000. Parliamentary approval for this expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Roads and Transport (Scotland) Vote. Pending that approval, the necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. This assistance will be met out of existing public expenditure, and an increase of £½ million will be made to the cash block SDD1. The remaining £300,000 will be paid from savings within the block.
If the undertaking is approved, the Secretary of State proposes to introduce in this financial year an interim scheme of subsidy. A sum of £800,000 will be spent to enable freight charges to be reduced by 35 per cent. for freight going south from the islands and by 12½ per cent. for freight going north to the islands. The subsidy is confined to freight traffic because this was the item to which the islands councils attached greatest priority when the proposals were discused with them. In the view of the


Government this will attract the greatest benefit to the islands' economies. The considerably greater rebate is being offered on southbound freight because this will direct most benefit to the islands themselves, especially to the agriculture industry and the many small businesses in the islands on which their prosperity depends.
A starting date of 1 September is proposed for the reductions. This should ensure that the cattle and sheep exported from the islands during the main livestock export season will benefit from the reductions. The proposed scheme will operate until the end of the financial year, that is to say 31 March 1980, and it has been welcomed by the islands councils, which see it as a basis on which to build for the future. Decisions on the level of subsidy for future years must, however, await the outcome of the Government's review of the shipping subsidy system.
I emphasise again that the scheme is designed to give benefit to the islands' communities by reducing the cost of importing by sea. But it also makes a much bigger reduction in the cost of exporting the products of the islands. This will be particularly beneficial to the islands' important agricultural industry, which exports a great deal of its produce to the mainland. The proposals should also have the minimum distorting effect on other forms of shipping, for example the coastal shipping or "puffer" trade which brings bulk cargoes such as coal, oil, timber and building materials into the islands. I understand that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is concerned that the coastal shipping trade should also be brought within our subsidy arrangements, and I shall be interested to hear any proposals that he may have for doing this so that we may consider them for the future.
While I cannot say what effect these proposals will have on prices in the shops in Orkney and Shetland, I am sure that the reduction in transport costs will have some effect, although I doubt if it will be a significant one. Indeed, a study published last week by the institute for the study of sparsely populated areas, at Aberdeen university, suggested that transport costs were not the main cause of high prices in isolated areas such as the islands. Its conclusion was that com-

petition between retailers and the size of the market were the crucial factors in keeping shop prices low.
The arrangement proposed in the draft undertaking is straightforward. The Secretary of State undertakes to pay grant to the shipping company to enable tariff reductions to be made on the services rendered. The company agrees to make specified reductions. The Secretary of State also is empowered to reimburse the company for incidental expenses necessarily incurred. The draft undertaking also makes provision for estimating the likely subsidy to be needed, for accounting for it, and for the company to make information available to the Secretary of State. Provision is also made for the undertaking to be changed or determined.
One important and new feature in the proposed arrangements is that each customer will be able to see just how much help is being given each time he uses the service. Each bill received from the shipping company will identify the commercial price; it will then identify the rebate financed by the Secretary of State and finally the actual price to be paid. This arrangement makes the benefit of the subsidy obvious to all who use the ferries and also, incidentally, makes it very simple for the Secretary of State to calculate precisely how much grant he needs to pay the company at the end of each month. This is an arrangement which I think we may consider for use elsewhere if it proves practicable here.
Finally, before I finish, I should like to compliment the P. and O. shipping company on the great interest which it has shown in the welfare of the islands. It has been extremely co-operative in the discusions which have led to this proposal and has shown a great willingness to enter into the necessary arrangements and a resourcefulness in considering and suggesting ways in which the scheme might work. This shows, I think, that it has the best interests of the islands at heart. I emphasise that it will have no financial benefit from these proposals.
I commend the draft undertaking to the House for its approval.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. George Robert son: The Opposition welcome the draft undertaking in many ways. Although the Under-Sec-


retary of State has come here to put forward the case and explain and outline the subsidy that is to be offered, the draft undertaking is the result of detailed discussions and negotiations that took place between the previous Administration and the people of Orkney and Shetland. Much of the credit for the undertaking should go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craignton (Mr. Milian), who responded to the views that were put forward by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and those expressed to him directly and indirectly by the islands councils in Orkney and Shetland. When the tickets come into the shops, showing the precise rebate on each item, I hope that due recognition for that rebate will be accorded to the former Secretary of State for Scotland.
In welcoming the draft undertaking I should like to make a few general comments. I do not believe that we can take this undertaking, or anything that is debated this evening or this week, in isolation. These matters should be considered and judged against the background of the Government's economic policy. It is incongruous that we are discussing a major subsidy to one part of the United Kingdom after eight weeks of announcement after announcement that the Government were cutting back on support to communities throughout the country. It is particularly incongruous to consider this evening's policy against the background of the cuts that have been announced in transportation on the mainland of Scotland and the reductions that will emanate almost directly from the cuts in local government spending that are proposed for the next financial year.
The Under-Secretary should be reminded of the suggestions that were made by his Department in a document that received widespread publicity in the Scottish press last weekend. It was a so-called secret and confidential document that was not made available to hon. Members or published to the country. It laid the foundation for the major cuts that the Government have proposed in an increasing and substantial way for local authorities. Those who have obtained the document inform me that it contains specific suggestions from the Government about transportation in Scotland. I am told that the document states that auth-

orities might also review their payments both for concessionary fares and for support of public transport and the services so supported. It also states that, where appropriate, consideration should be given to introducing or increasing charges. Therefore, on the one hand the Government are claiming credit for reducing the cost of living in one part of the United Kingdom, while on the other hand they are, by their policies, directly indicating an increase in the cost of transportation for those in the rest of the country.
The Government's proposals for roads and transport in Scotland also mean that, as part and parcel of their manifesto commitment to building more dual carriageway roads in Scotland and increasing certain expenditure on roads, the totality of cuts in expenditure on roads and transportation in Scotland will fall with greater calamity on some parts of the country than on others.
A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in a written answer yet again that his budget for roads and transportation in Scotland was to be cut in this financial year by £4·6 million. This evening the Under-Secretary has announced that as a result of this draft undertaking an additional Supplementary Estimate of £800,000 will be called upon to be met from the Scottish Office Vote. He said that £500,000 of this would be from Supplementary Estimates on SDD1 but that £300,000 would have to be met from savings under the same heading. We think that it is incumbent upon the Under-Secretary this evening not only to announce the good news but for the other people in Scotland, who are to bear the burden of the increased subsidy for Orkney and Shetland, to know where the burden will fall.
If all these miles of new dual carriageway are to be built in Scotland, let the Government and the Under-Secretary tell the people of Scotland who will suffer the largest amount of cuts to allow that additional expenditure to take place.
The House will welcome the news that the Government are to review ferry services. It would welcome it all the more but for the presumption that we can easily make that that sort of review is likely to result only in an overall reduction in Government expenditure on the services described in their election manifesto. It is interesting to compare the


Government's attitude in the last few weeks on Government expenditure with so many of the pious sentiments expressed by the Under-Secretary's colleagues in previous debates on similar draft undertakings.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), speaking in the debate on the equivalent draft undertaking for Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., said:
The Opposition accept completely that certain sea routes should be subsidised. We accept the social need and the social cost in principle."—[Official Report, 5 August 1975; Vol. 897 c. 441.]
If anyone believed that that was to be the principle underlying the Government's review of ferry services, he would have much greater confidence in the outcome of the review and in its consequences for the people of the islands around the Scottish coast.
When they were in Opposition, a number of the Conservatives' policies tended to indicate that in this matter they would embark upon a policy with what was described by the former Shadow Secretary of State, Mr. Teddy Taylor, as the American anti-trust attitude, with the busting of the services of monopolies around the coasts of Scotland. Yet here we are discussing a draft undertaking, put forward by a Conservative Government, that places a subsidy in the hands of an operator that was being chastised in 1975 in terms that indicated that if it operated in America it would be prosecuted under the anti-trust laws.
The Under-Secretary said that the review that is being embarked upon by the Scottish Office is designed to see how the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a road equivalent tariff can be implemented. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will await with bated breath the Government's announcement of how they will do that while embarking upon a programme of massive and increasing cuts in public expenditure. The calculations that were done by the previous Administration, which I am sure must have been shown to the new Ministers, show that the cost of introducing such a scheme, fine though it is in principle, would be enormous. It will be interesting to find out at that stage how the Government reconcile the reality with their commitment

during the 1979 general election. I want to know how it will be done. Who will pay the price for it? At the end of the day, who will have the cuts which seem to be the only way by which the Government will finance the additional cost of their own commitments?
I shall not take too much time at this late hour, but these matters are of more than passing interest. Although there are those on the Government Benches who, as they previously announced, are here only at the behest of the Whips and not out of any interest in the subjects under debate, they should understand that this is an important matter for many people in Scotland beyond those covered by the undertaking under debate. The policy implications of the Government's expenditure cuts have yet to be fully realised throughout Scotland, and I am sure that when their extent is fully comprehended there will be horror at their consequences.
However, I welcome this draft undertaking and the work that has been put into it. I hope that in Orkney and Shetland it will be recognised as part of the previous Government's commitment and policy to strengthen life in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The first point I make is that it is five minutes to three in the morning. For a Parliament which is about to go on holiday for two and a half months still to be sitting at this time and to have sat until after midnight all this week, discussing matters, for instance in regard to Northern Ireland, of the greatest importance, must give the public the impression that we are utterly incapable of running our own business. For any Government who cannot even run Parliament to pretend to run the country will, I am afraid, only he greeted with total disbelief.
I beseech the Scottish Office—I do not blame Scottish Ministers for it—to make serious representations that whoever runs the business of the House should show some example and evidence of being capable of organising matters in such a way that business gets done in reasonable working time. It cannot be said that our holidays are too short.
I welcome the undertaking. It is notorious that the greatest handicap


which my constituents have suffered is that of high freight charges. Although there are criticisms of the present proposals, at least they show that the Government recognise that we are entitled to some help.
The Western Isles receive many millions of pounds a year in help. Up to now we have had no help for the general services to Orkney and Shetland, though it must be said that we have had help over capital works and certain internal services. So this is an important breakthrough and recognition of the needs of my constituents, and for that reason I welcome it.
I gather that the Government have said that they will now embark upon some examination of policy for the future and, in particular, whether they are able to advance to us a road equivalent subsidy. That also I welcome, and I make two or three suggestions for consideration in the review.
First, it is extremely important to us that whatever help is given is available for bulk shipments and for charters, the reason being that many of our most important items of trade, such as cattle, sheep, coal, and so on, are carried by such shipments. Secondly, although £800,000 is not to sneezed it, it is a drop in a bucket compared with what other shipments get and, indeed, compared with what London gets as a subsidy towards its transport.
Thirdly, we want to be assured that whatever subsidy is given goes to the people for whom it is intended and not merely into the general accounts of the P. and O. company. I am sure that the Government have all these matters in mind, if they have much in mind at this time of the morning, and that they will carry them forward into the broad light of day when they embark on further negotiations on the future of the subsidy.
At this time of day I merely say that there is nothing that could be more important to my constituents than some help with freight. Secondly, oil is not an unmitigated blessing. It has increased many costs. There are many who have not benefited from the hard payments that the oil industry is making. When the oil boom runs down we shall be more dependent than ever upon our basic Indus-

tries, and they in turn will be dependent to some extent upon freight charges. Thirdly, when negotiations are entered into again—I take it that that will be fairly soon—I hope that the Government will bear in mind that it is the native people whom the subsidies are designed to help, and that they should not be confined to the routine scheduled services but should be extended to charters, bulk shipments and, to some extent, to passenger fares. When the undertaking is brought before the House again, as I trust it will be, I hope that we shall see the fruits of the negotiations.
I accept that the Government have had only a few months in which to deal with these matters. As I understand it, the Government are to enter into further discussions. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Therefore, the matter will come back to Parliament in due course. In the meantime, I welcome the undertaking as far as it goes.

3.2 a.m.

Mr. Rifkind: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply briefly to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I thank them both for welcoming the undertaking that the Government are introducing.
First, I respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. He correctly said that discussions began when the previous Government were in office. He made the interesting suggestion that when tickets are being sold on Orkney and Shetland they should include an expression of gratitude to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). That might be fair, but only if included on the ticket were a reference to the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman for the dramatic increase in the level of charges during his period of office. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to take credit without taking responsibility for the many dramatic fare increases that people throughout Britain, and especially on the islands, have experienced over the past five years. Those increases were a major contribution to the very problem that the Government are now trying to solve.
The hon. Member for Hamilton ranged somewhat wide in his remarks. He introduced a reference to what he chose to describe as a secret, confidential document that had been made available to local authorities. That description may have suggested that some exciting revelation was about to be made. However, the so-called secret, confidential document to which he referred was a document circulated to all the members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As that body includes members of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and other political parties, I do not think that the Government would have expected the document to remain confidential and secret for very long, if that had been their intention in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was a paradox between the assistance that the Government are giving to Orkney and Shetland and their warnings that fare increases will be necessary on the mainland. We are not suggesting that Orkney and Shetland may be protected from fare increases. We are not saying that an undertaking must be given to this one part of the United Kingdom that, if there are increases throughout the rest of the country, it will not have to take its share of them.
The undertaking recognises—I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman was aware of this—that the level of transport charges to the islands, because of their special geographical position, is dramatically in excess of that elsewhere on the mainland and that a response is required from Government. That is a response which the Government are making.
I turn to the more detailed comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman began by making some remarks with which I have some sympathy—namely, that it is inappropriate to discuss this undertaking or any other matter at this time in the morning. The Government were anxious that the undertaking should be dealt with before the House goes into the Summer Recess.
The right hon. Gentleman will be particularly aware that the commencement date of 1 September will enable the islands' cattle and sheep exports to benefit from the undertaking. If the Govern-

ment had declined to introduce it until after the recess, so that it could be considered at a more reasonable hour, the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would have suffered substantially. I think he will agree that the minor inconvenience that he and I and other hon. Members have experienced is more than outweighed by that consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of bulk cargoes, which are not included and which will not directly benefit as a result of the undertaking. I made that clear in opening. But the review of the whole question of road equivalent tariff will certainly take this matter into account. We shall try to see whether a response can be made to the specific problems that bulk cargo traffic involves. There is the difficulty that it is far more complex to control the method and the proper level of help to bulk cargo traffic than scheduled traffic as covered by the undertaking. This is a technical rather than a fundamental difficulty in principle. We shall be examining ways in which the matter can be resolved.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the assistance given would be of benefit to the islanders and not to the company operating the shipping services. I thought that I had made it clear that in no way will the company benefit to the tune of even 1p from the assistance that the Government are giving. Every pound given to the company must be met by an equivalent reduction in the revenue that it would otherwise receive in fares paid by members of the public. That is why I paid tribute to the company for having been so co-operative in assisting both the islands and the Government on a matter from which it will have no financial benefit.
This is not a loss-making company. It is not a company which requested this assistance. The assistance is given to meet the needs of the islanders. We are confident that the strict rules laid down in the undertaking will ensure that the benefit goes to those for whom it is intended. The right hon. Gentleman need have no concern about that.
With those remarks, I commend the undertaking to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland on the one hand, and the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company on the other, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 July],
That the Standing Order (Select Committees related to Government Departments) be amended, in the Table, column 4 (Maximum numbers of Members), in respect of the Defence Committee, the Energy Committee, the Environment Committee, and the Transport Committee, by leaving out "10" and inserting "11", instead thereof.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown). Will the hon. Gentleman move it formally?

3.8 a.m.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should like to move the amendment because I think that it is important that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment is not debatable. Will the hon. Gentleman please move it formally?

Mr. Brown: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, after "11", insert
and in respect of the Agriculture Committee, the Education, Science and Arts Committee, the Employment Committee, and the Social Services Committee, by leaving out '9' and inserting 11'.".

It being after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to have it recorded that it was the Government who defeated the amendment, and that they have thereby refused to set up the Committees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to have that recorded. The objection is recorded in the Journal as an objection.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment to the motion.

Motion made,
That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. R. B. Cant, Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth, Mr. Tony Durant, Sir Nigel Fisher, Mr. Percy Grieve, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr David Madel, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Arthur Palmer, and Mr. Frederick Willey, be members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — BENEFIT PAYMENTS (DELAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

3.9 a.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the delay in payments to those entitled to child benefit, pensions and other social security benefits.
I have no doubt that all hon. Members and Ministers are deeply unhappy about the situation that has prevailed for some weeks in the Department of Health and Social Security at Newcastle. It has led to a great deal of personal anguish and suffering and, indeed, hardship for tens of thousands of families throughout the length and breadth of the country.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is to reply to the debate. I understand why he is taking the place of my hon. hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who is unavoidably absent from the House tonight.
The fact remains that the position has been and still is serious and could get worse. The root of the problem lies at Newcastle and the operation of the computer. One reason for the situation is that too much has been done too quickly in the sense that the new pension scheme, the changes in rates and computerisation have come at the same time. Perhaps it would have been wiser not to have brought all these points to bear within

such a short period, thus creating a great strain upon the staff at Newcastle and upon the organisation of the whole Department.
The House will recall the appalling difficulties that were faced by the Swansea driver and vehicle licensing computer over a long period and the inconvenience which that caused to many of our constituents. It it vital, in my view, that Newcastle does not go the same way. I suggest that, after consultation with his colleagues, a Minister from the DHSS should go to Newcastle with technical advisers and experts and stay there until this situation is sorted out.
I hope that the Minister will not say that everything is moving in the right direction, that the problem is being sorted out and is virtually over, because that would not be in keeping with the evidence that I have obtained. It is certainly not the view of the secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association in Newcastle. He has made it clear that in his view there is no hope of clearing the backlog of work at present.
Last week the national secretary of the DHSS section of the CPSA was reported as saying:
In our strike earlier this year the union didn't want to hit the sick and the poor. Now they are being thrust into the front line.
That is supported by a copy of a letter which was given to me tonight by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh). That letter, from a senior official at the DHSS child benefit centre in Washington and dated 11 July, reads:
I am sure you will be aware that the child benefit payment computer was stopped by industrial action for five weeks covering the whole of April. Although we were recovering the backlog thus created quite rapidly we have been set back once more by the imposition of an overtime ban by the unions concerned from 18 June 1979.
Furthermore, a significant number of hon. Members know that the problem has not been solved. Early-day motion 121, which relates to the decentralisation of child benefit, reads:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to decentralise to local offices the system of issuing child benefit books since serious delays continue to occur at the central issuing office in Washington to the obvious detriment and hardship of many constituents of hon. Members.
There is widespread concern in the House and among officials of the DHSS, the


trade unions involved and, indeed, a large number of people in the country.
It is, of course, totally wrong that the CPSA should hold to ransom some of the most vulnerable sections of our community, by overtime ban and restrictive practices which are making pensioners and those families entitled to receive child benefit suffer considerably. Whatever its members' grievances—and I accept that there are problems, that they are under great pressure, that there is some argument for increasing the rates of pay of the computer operators, and that there is even some argument for giving the Department in Newcastle and perhaps other parts of the country special exemption from the moratorium on staff recruitment—there can be no excuse for exploiting the sick, the young and the elderly.
In Brighton as a whole, 300 pensioners are getting their payments without new or replacement books. I pay my tribute to the way in which the Department's officers in my area have coped with the problem of the pensioners. I suspect, however, that it is only the tip of the iceberg and that there are many hundreds more in Brighton and tens of thousands throughout the country as a whole just sitting waiting patiently for their pension books to come, who have made no application for them. A large number of them are facing serious inconvenience. They have to get to the Department's offices, and for many of them that can be a long and difficult trip; it causes unnecessary expense to them.
With child benefit, we come into an area of slightly different problems. I have one case in Brighton where, for over three months, the family had nothing. Happily, in the last 24 hours it has received a Girocheque for over £100. But for a family living on a low income to reach that situation, in which it is owed £100 by the State, is disgraceful. It means that the family has not been able to pay the rent and has suffered considerable hardship.
These delays are continuing. I am concerned about the payment of emergency amounts. According to a report in The Guardian this week, the Department said:
there should be no further delays in replacing child benefit books, though there were delays in other parts of the benefit system. Local officers had been told that where people

had been affected by delays at Washington they were eligible for emergency payments.
That, I am sure, is true in some cases, but I ask my hon. Friend to confirm whether it is a fact that local officers of the Department have no authority to make payments of child benefit without authority from Newcastle, and that where a husband is in full-time employment and may well be on a very low wage no emergency payments can be made. It the problem is not solved rapidly, I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that help can be given to this group. It is difficult to quantify this problem in terms of human anguish, discomfort and suffering. I know that the Minister will be anxious to find an answer to this problem. I say to him that it must be found quickly.

3.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) for raising the question of delays in payment of social security benefits and for doing so in such a reasoned and cogent way. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary regrets that she is prevented by a previous commitment abroad from replying to this debate. She has been to Newcastle on several occasions and she is planning to spend two days there early next month, further to inform herself about the situation. She is, of course, in touch on a day-to-day basis with what is going on there.
The debate provides me with the opportunity to explain the present position, which I appreciate is rightly causing concern to hon. Members. The Government share that concern. First, let me explain the way in which social security payments are made and the numbers involved, so that the recent delays can be put in perspective. Some 20 million people are receiving some form of social security benefit each week. All but about half a million pensioners, who are paid at intervals of four or 13 weeks, receive their benefits by order book or Giro-cheque which are cashed each week at post offices.
The instruments of payments are issued from four sources. First, there are order books, or Girocheques, for payment of supplementary benefits and retirement pension combined with supplementary pension, sickness, injury and invalidity


benefits, maternity allowance and the first payment of widow's allowance which are issued from our local offices. So far as I am aware, these payments are being made normally.
Second, there are Girocheques for the payment of unemployment benefit. These are issued from the Reading and Livingston computer centres and local unemployment benefit offices. There have been delays of two to three days in some areas during the recent postal difficulties but payments are now being made normally again.
Third, there are order books for the payment of war pensions, attendance allowance, invalid care allowance, housewives' non-contributory invalidity benefit, family income supplement and mobility allowance which are issued from our central office in North Fylde. Apart from a few isolated cases which occur from time to time—mainly because we are not aware of a change of post office or address—there are no delays in the receipt of these books.
Lastly, there are order books for retirement pension, widow's pension and child benefit. These are issued by computer from our central office in Newcastle. These delays are the main concern of my hon. Friend. I start with child benefit. The standard of performance of the new child benefit centre at Washington new town was not initially satisfactory but it has improved steadily, until 28 March when there was an unofficial strike by senior data processors at the centre. This led to the complete stoppage of the issue of computer-produced order books for five weeks. This action was taken as part of a Civil Service industrial dispute over pay with our predecessors and special arrangements were made to enable post offices to make payments to parents whose order books had expired and who were awaiting a renewal book.
In addition, local social security offices made special payments to parents experiencing financial difficulty because they were without their child benefit book. This unofficial strike was totally unjustified as negotiations were still proceeding at that time on the pay issue. The senior data processors' strike ended on 1 May and the staff at Washington began the task of clearing the considerable backlog of work which had accumulated. Good pro-

gress was made by the staff working overtime in the evenings and at weekends. By the beginning of June, emergency payments by post officers were no longer needed because renewal order books were being sent to post offices three weeks before the due date of the first order.
There remained a backlog of work on new claims and changes of circumstances which was being steadily reduced. However, the executive comittees of the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association, the Civil Service unions representing staff at the centre, then imposed a ban on overtime working. This was in protest against the prospect of cuts in the size of the Civil Service. It was not really a dispute about pay. While all overtime is worked on a voluntary basis, the unions are fully aware that the consequences of the ban are serious and have an adverse effect on some families least able to bear it. The impact is greater this year because, in addition to the arrears of work from the period of the unofficial strike, overtime is usually necessary at this time of the year to cope with the extra work at the centre which accompanies the main school leaving period and coincides with the peak period of staff leave. Overtime was also needed at this time of the year during the family allowance era.
The root of the problem is not the computer, as my hon. Friend implied at the beginning of his speech, but the overtime ban. Because of this overtime ban there will continue to be delays in dealing with some aspects of child benefit work. I must assure the House that we are very conscious of the importance of this benefit to the family budget, and that every effort is being made to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum. In spite of the overtime ban, the staff are working exceptionally hard to achieve this in normal working hours.
There have been reports in the media that no child benefit order books are now being issued. This is just not true. There are, unfortunately, some cases of hardship which, for various reasons, do not get the help that we would like. My hon. Friend mentioned one or two constituency cases. Some families are being caused considerable inconvenience and distress. However, there should be no delays in payments for those parents whose order book expires, since 280,000 renewal order


books a week are being issued to post offices four weeks before the due date of the first order. There is some delay in dealing with claims for newly born children, but even here the centre is issuing order books for straightforward claims within about three weeks of receipt of the claim. More seriously, delays continue to occur where a change of circumstances is reported which affects the rate of benefit, but priority is being given to those claims in which the parent has forwarded the order book for adjustment.
As for the future, I have to tell hon. Members that the arrears of child benefit work will not be cleared as long as the overtime ban remains in force, although the centre will continue to give priority to those claims in which a parent has returned an order book. Local offices have again been reminded of their ability to make additional payments in the absence of a child benefit order book and to take particular care in cases where a parent is in receipt of supplementary benefit. I shall look into the circumstances that my hon. Friend described and let him know what the procedure should be. I should also tell the House that the number of parents who need to return their order books for adjustment should steadily diminish because of the introduction of a new computer system. The system provides an 18-week order book in place of the previous 52-week book, and enables an increase in the amount of benefit to he paid by an additional book rather than having to recall the existing book.
I turn now to the delay in the payment of national insurance retirement and widow's pensions. The first payment of pensions under the new pension scheme began to be made from 6 April this year. We moved on to a wholly earnings-related scheme and the calculation of a person's entitlement became much more complicated and involved a change to a new computer. This was, of course, a complicated operation. The design of the new programme and trials had been going on for some time, but the actual changeover to the new computer was planned to take place over the long Easter weekend of 13 April to 16 April.
This was necessary because, whilst the conversion was taking place, the computers could not cope with the intake of new information or issue any instru-

ments of payment. The scale of the operation can be gauged from the fact that, in a normal week, Newcastle central office issues 720,000 instruments of payment for retirement and widowed pensioners in the United Kingdom.
An overtime ban by staff, which was part of the same dispute that stopped the child benefit computer in April, meant that the computer conversion could not be done by working overtime during the Easter weekend. Instead, this had to be done in normal working hours in the ensuing weeks. During this time the normal work of the computer, including the issue of instruments of payment, could not be carried out. The position was aggravated by two one-day strikes, also part of the industrial action arising from the Civil Service pay dispute before we came to office. In the event, the computer conversion went extremely well.
The overtime ban was lifted on 2 May and full-scale overtime, including weekend working, was put into operation. By the middle of May the issue of renewal order books was two weeks behind normal timetable and payable orders were about nine days behind.
Arrangements were made with the Post Office for the order books to be issued by first-class post so that they could be in post offices for collection by pensioners by the date of first payment. Local offices were kept in touch with developments so that those pensioners unable to obtain their pensions in the normal way were able to obtain payment by Girocheque from the local office. As a result of considerable effort on the part of staff, by 15 June the issue of renewable order books was only two days behind the normal timetable, and payable orders were being issued on time.
Matters were made worse by postal delays in some parts of the country. These postal difficulties have contributed to pension books not reaching their destinations in time, because our renewal order books are issued by second-class post and were therefore subject to that delay. There are, however, standing arrangements for payments to be made by Girocheque from local offices if a pensioner is in financial difficulty because he is without an order book, and local offices have not hesitated to make payments to pensioners in that way recently.
The backlog of work that built up during the changeover to the new computer system has resulted in delays in processing new claims to pensions. Where order books could not be sent to post offices in time, emergency payments were made by Girocheque from local offices. There is now only a very small backlog on cases where a person is due to retire within the next five weeks. There is still some delay in handling changes of circumstances notified by pensioners, but in the great majority of these cases local offices are making emergency payments by Giro-cheque.
My Department has had discussions with the Post Office about postal delays on order books, and arrangements have been made for the order books to be cleared urgently. That has improved the situation, but in some areas there were still delays in a small number of cases. A meeting with the Post Office was held last week to see how these residual delays could be eliminated. The Post Office has introduced new arrangements for sorting and despatching the pensions and child benefit order books from Newcastle, and has reminded its staff of the urgency of that mail. It is confident that the situation will improve.
The delays in the receipt of benefit payments are reducing and now affect only a small proportion of beneficiaries. But we cannot be satisfied whilst there are any delays at all, and I am sorry that some beneficiaries have been put to considerable inconvenience. My Department will continue to monitor the position and make weekly reports to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. All practical steps will be taken to reduce or eliminate the delays that are still occurring in some areas. Meanwhile, if any pensioners or beneficiaries are in financial difficulty, they should contact their local social security office about receiving a special payment.
Before leaving that subject I should like to comment on an article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday entitled "Benefit Increases Delayed". When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the increased rates of pensions and benefits on 13 June he warned the House that, as the announcement was

made some weeks later than the usual date due to the election, in some areas new rates of supplementary benefit would not be in payment until a few weeks after 12 November. He made it clear that any arrears of benefit would be paid from 12 November. That remains the position, and it relates only to supplementary benefit increases. We expect all other increases of pensions and benefits to be paid on time.
We are in the early stages of a major review of the administration of social security benefits. In the longer term we want to see greater use being made of computer and related technologies to help staff provide a better service to the public. More immediately, we are looking at our arrangements for paying benefits to see whether changes in the methods, and possibly the frequency, would enable us to provide a more efficient service to the public. It is too soon to say what will emerge from that examination, but one area that is being studied closely is the scope for making more use of direct payment of benefits into bank accounts. As more and more beneficiaries have bank accounts, that may prove to be a more efficient and reliable way of paying benefits to the public.
Finally, I should like to assure the House that we—and that includes the staff concerned—are doing our best to mitigate the effect of the overtime ban imposed by the unions' executives. In my view, the overtime ban is totally pointless. It is intended as a demonstration of opposition to Government plans to reduce the size of the Civil Service, but we shall not be deflected by these methods from pursuing the policies for which we were elected. The brunt of that action is borne by innocent families, many of whom suffer unnecessary anxiety and in some cases real hardship. We shall, of course, continue to do our best to reduce delays, but there is a limit to what we can achieve and, as I have said, as long as the unions continue to enforce the ban on overtime some delays are inevitable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Four o'clock a.m.